The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Mialla]

That may be interesting.
A little remembrance

Yvette Cooper of the British Labout Party doesn't agree with your stats
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... hin-labour

Ok, let me talk to you a bit about how science works.

Science is the study for facts, even social sciences (such as they are). This means that a scientist will form a hypothesis, ask questions, take surveys, collect data, and otherwise figure out if the hypothesis is true or not. The scientist then usually publishes a compilation of such data, usually with graphs and tables, in a format known as a "study".

If you do not agree with a study, then you need to break it down to look at the methodology and show where the study is wrong. Conversely, you can bring to the table another study which has different results. If a result cannot be repeated, it is not valuable.

Saying "This famous person disagrees" does not in any way invalidate a study. It just makes a person look like they have no idea how to even argue or debate anything involving the use of stats and data. That's why it has its own fallacy name - appeal to authority or argument from authority.

I hope this has been helpful to you. In the future, please use science to try and contradict science.

Thank you.

Ok, let me talk to you a bit about how politics works: highlighted issues are considered, other issues are dismissed (just like in NSG).
Let me talk even more straight: Convention of Istanbul, sounds familiar?
Yvette Cooper is highlighting cyber violence ON WOMEN
UN is highlighting cyberviolence ON WOMEN
The fact that UN ignores some studies do not invalidates these studies: it make these studies useless to drawing a law.
Authorities are the ones who draw laws, their opinion is, at the end, the only opinion that really have influence on laws.

Would you bet that something like a Cyber VAWA and/or an extension to Internet of Convention of Istanbul will be implemented?
That basically mean that, after such law will be passed, people like Ostroeuropa and Tahar Joblis will have to be very careful when they'll write something, when instead I'll have no problems

The defeated candidate Yvette Cooper doesn't have to agree with "my stats." She can cry her sour grapes all she wants. Heck, she can be as deluded as you if she wants - doesn't mean anyone has to take her seriously.

Yvette Cooper fails to support her assertions with any evidence,and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn will take her seriously.
Especially after the protests he already received about the composition of his shadow cabinet: he cannot risk to alienate even more women from him.

I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn will take her seriously.

Pandering to her to avoid a split is not the same as taking her seriously

Especially after the protests he already received about the composition of his shadow cabinet: he cannot risk to alienate even more women from him.

And plenty of women told those "protesting" to shut up and stop being stupid.

It seems I was right
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34392427

"Cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber-bullying and especially the misogynistic abuse online and let's get on with bringing real values back into politics", he said.

I hope that will help Galloism and Hirota to better understand how real political pressure works.

[Haktiva]

What, Anita and Zoe at the UN? As if they didn't already lose all their credibility when they had Saudi Arabia head the Human Rights Center.

[Galloism]

Chess -

You know, that you hace no interest in facts or actual study of the problem but only in good-sounding buzzwords to put forth your agenda is a sad commentary on you. It means that you have no interest in actually fixing real world problems - only advancing your agenda.

The fact that such tactics work politically is a sad commentary on the world.

[Haktiva]

Chess -

You know, that you hace no interest in facts or actual study of the problem but only in good-sounding buzzwords to put forth your agenda is a sad commentary on you. It means that you have no interest in actually fixing real world problems - only advancing your agenda.

The fact that such tactics work politically is a sad commentary on the world.

yet it gets liars and cheats the chance to talk at the UN. funny ain't it?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber-bullying and especially the misogynistic abuse online and let's get on with bringing real values back into politics", he said.

You can't possibly think that:

1. This is an endorsement to legislate against cyberbullying (which it isn't).
2. That legislation will make a difference on cyberbullying (which it won't).

[Galloism]

Chess -

You know, that you hace no interest in facts or actual study of the problem but only in good-sounding buzzwords to put forth your agenda is a sad commentary on you. It means that you have no interest in actually fixing real world problems - only advancing your agenda.

The fact that such tactics work politically is a sad commentary on the world.

yet it gets liars and cheats the chance to talk at the UN. funny ain't it?

I think I used a different word - sad. I meant it.

Nothing's going to get better for equal rights while self-righteous people, with mindsets similar to Chess, claiming to be for equal rights actually work against it. It's only going to get worse.

Please stop the planet - I want to get off.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

You'd all be excellent in politics, every last one of you, convinced that if something isn't specific to your hopes and plans then it's worthless. I don't want anyone reading this and nodding arrogantly. This thread ought to be an ecstatic proof that not one of you can stand to have someone talk about something not on your agenda; and I don't mean things you disagree with, I mean what you don't specifically make a concerted effort to agree with. You are caught by the presumption that life to one effort is inherently death to all the others.

[Tahar Joblis]

You'd all be excellent in politics, every last one of you, convinced that if something isn't specific to your hopes and plans then it's worthless. I don't want anyone reading this and nodding arrogantly. This thread ought to be an ecstatic proof that not one of you can stand to have someone talk about something not on your agenda; and I don't mean things you disagree with, I mean what you don't specifically make a concerted effort to agree with. You are caught by the presumption that life to one effort is inherently death to all the others.

You are confusing the specific with the general. Those accusing the feminist movement of inhibiting progress on men's rights do so for quite specific reasons. I was just talking about one of them in the other thread.

The reason the feminist movement is a problem is not anything intrinsic to it being a social movement. In fact, we can easily imagine a world in which the feminist movement was actually a movement for gender equality, in which case it would be thoroughly compatible with fixing men's issues. We are not, however, living in such a world.

[Valyrian Freeholds]

That may be interesting.
A little remembrance

Ok, let me talk to you a bit about how science works.

Science is the study for facts, even social sciences (such as they are). This means that a scientist will form a hypothesis, ask questions, take surveys, collect data, and otherwise figure out if the hypothesis is true or not. The scientist then usually publishes a compilation of such data, usually with graphs and tables, in a format known as a "study".

If you do not agree with a study, then you need to break it down to look at the methodology and show where the study is wrong. Conversely, you can bring to the table another study which has different results. If a result cannot be repeated, it is not valuable.

Saying "This famous person disagrees" does not in any way invalidate a study. It just makes a person look like they have no idea how to even argue or debate anything involving the use of stats and data. That's why it has its own fallacy name - appeal to authority or argument from authority.

I hope this has been helpful to you. In the future, please use science to try and contradict science.

Thank you.

Ok, let me talk to you a bit about how politics works: highlighted issues are considered, other issues are dismissed (just like in NSG).
Let me talk even more straight: Convention of Istanbul, sounds familiar?
Yvette Cooper is highlighting cyber violence ON WOMEN
UN is highlighting cyberviolence ON WOMEN
The fact that UN ignores some studies do not invalidates these studies: it make these studies useless to drawing a law.
Authorities are the ones who draw laws, their opinion is, at the end, the only opinion that really have influence on laws.

Would you bet that something like a Cyber VAWA and/or an extension to Internet of Convention of Istanbul will be implemented?
That basically mean that, after such law will be passed, people like Ostroeuropa and Tahar Joblis will have to be very careful when they'll write something, when instead I'll have no problems

The defeated candidate Yvette Cooper doesn't have to agree with "my stats." She can cry her sour grapes all she wants. Heck, she can be as deluded as you if she wants - doesn't mean anyone has to take her seriously.

Yvette Cooper fails to support her assertions with any evidence,and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn will take her seriously.
Especially after the protests he already received about the composition of his shadow cabinet: he cannot risk to alienate even more women from him.

Pandering to her to avoid a split is not the same as taking her seriously
And plenty of women told those "protesting" to shut up and stop being stupid.

It seems I was right
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34392427

"Cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber-bullying and especially the misogynistic abuse online and let's get on with bringing real values back into politics", he said.

I hope that will help Galloism and Hirota to better understand how real political pressure works.

Oh please, "Kinder Politics" is another stupid way to tell them he wants to change things up. It's standard political formula, claim you're different, you're an outsider, you will not stick to same old agenda. All that huff and puff to convince naive new voters who don't realise (Ironically) that current politics is just lying and dodging and they'll continue that trend. Corbyn will either fall back on his promise or use passive-aggressive techniques. He can't control what people outside his party say so he may as well just be blowing hot air.

[Radfems Inc]

I have some problems with gay pronography, just like Gloria Steinem, because it can reinforce patriarchal attitudes and that's hurting for women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_St ... ornography

...

Wow.

Just... Wow. I mean, WOW. Did you understood what you quoted? Did you thought about what this just a little before reposting it? Damn, did you even read it? Because there are so much bullshit and mysandrist inanity that I don't even know with what to begin with...

Anyway, I will just go with the two worst point of this quote and try to debunk them.

Firstly; Erotica are no different from porn, R-18 Comics are no different from porn, Hentai are no different from porn. There are "vanilla" version of them just like there are vanilla porn, and there are hardcore version of them just like there are hardcore porn.
There is a want for sex that many people, men and women alike, are experiencing and, as any unfulfilled need, a company will gladly jump in this empty sector to make money outta it.
So, sorry to tell you that but porn as an industry isn't the result of "Patriarchy", just of Capitalism.

Secondly; MALE GAY AREN'T ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, and more importantly GAY RELATIONSHIP AREN'T IMITATING STRAIGHT RELATIONSHIP.
I can't believe I have to explain that to someone who is herself into a homosexual relationship...

Keep in mind, she wasn't saying that gay men were oppressing women with their porn because they're sexually interested in women. Being sexually interested in women IS oppression, but that's not what she was talking about.

In gay porn, usually there is one gay man dominating another by penetrating him. Since penetration is domination, gay porn reinforces the male conquerer/female conquered typology. It's just that, in the case of male porn, the recipient of the conquered and penetrated victim is played by a guy. However, he still plays the typically female role and therefore it's oppressive to women and reinforces the notion of male conqueror/female victim being a normal and accepted thing.

[Chessmistress]

yet it gets liars and cheats the chance to talk at the UN. funny ain't it?

I think I used a different word - sad. I meant it.

Nothing's going to get better for equal rights while self-righteous people, with mindsets similar to Chess, claiming to be for equal rights actually work against it. It's only going to get worse.

Please stop the planet - I want to get off.

It works fine, so, why not?

This has absolutely fucking nothing to do with online abuse.

Since we can pull any stat to prove that women/men have it worse somehow, I'm going to point out that 77% of murder victims are male. Somehow, using your logic, that means that men have it worse in online abuse. I think.

Am I doing it right?

Quite good
That's how, more or less, political pressure is performed when it comes to gendering issues.
But you just lack a feature, and that's deadly for achieving your purpose: the cultural environment (aka the stereotypes) should be receptive about your claims.
Saying males are harassed even more doesn't meet such criteria, it cannot: because most people automatically associate the word "harassment" with sexual harassment on women.
In other words, you should be able to exploit old stereotypes and take advantage of these old stereotypes instead of fighting it, enforcing people who have this outdated beliefs to act mostly against themselves. It works fine with misogynist tradcons.

I'm saying that Jeremy Corbyn will automatically trust Yvette Cooper without even checking her claims because he's a 66 yo sexist dinosaur.
Just only a nut with an head full of outdated stereotypes can really think women are weaker than males in a virtual environment, where the difference in physical strenght and in economical positions plays no role at all.
But that will not be bad, the opposite: it will be empowering for women. Not so much for males...

Stupid pride and sense of superiority of sexist but goodwillingly males like Jeremy Corbyn have always been, and still are, the best unwillingly ally of Feminism.

[Radfems Inc]

You'd all be excellent in politics, every last one of you, convinced that if something isn't specific to your hopes and plans then it's worthless. I don't want anyone reading this and nodding arrogantly. This thread ought to be an ecstatic proof that not one of you can stand to have someone talk about something not on your agenda; and I don't mean things you disagree with, I mean what you don't specifically make a concerted effort to agree with. You are caught by the presumption that life to one effort is inherently death to all the others.

You are confusing the specific with the general. Those accusing the feminist movement of inhibiting progress on men's rights do so for quite specific reasons. I was just talking about one of them in the other thread.

The reason the feminist movement is a problem is not anything intrinsic to it being a social movement. In fact, we can easily imagine a world in which the feminist movement was actually a movement for gender equality, in which case it would be thoroughly compatible with fixing men's issues. We are not, however, living in such a world.

You seem to be confusing our world with another one where men and women are equally situated.

There is no reason to legislate against female on male rape, as such is impossible given the power dynamics of society. Women, at best, can be considered as primary victims in any scenario where a male is not wanting to have sex and it is thrust upon him. The patriarchal society in which we live has made sex of extremely high importance, and imprinted on women that having sex with 'that guy' is important for her, even if it would not be important for her otherwise. She cannot meaningfully decide to rape a man because the patriarchy has made that decision for her, and women are generally unable to consent to penetrative sex due to such patriarchal pressures.

Rape requires that the perpetrator be consenting and the victim not be. Since meaningful consent, when it comes to penetrative sex, is impossible for women in our society, they cannot rape. The law should recognize this fact until such time as we have true gender equality and the patriarchal domination ends.

QED.

[Kisinger]

...

Wow.

Just... Wow. I mean, WOW. Did you understood what you quoted? Did you thought about what this just a little before reposting it? Damn, did you even read it? Because there are so much bullshit and mysandrist inanity that I don't even know with what to begin with...

Anyway, I will just go with the two worst point of this quote and try to debunk them.

Firstly; Erotica are no different from porn, R-18 Comics are no different from porn, Hentai are no different from porn. There are "vanilla" version of them just like there are vanilla porn, and there are hardcore version of them just like there are hardcore porn.
There is a want for sex that many people, men and women alike, are experiencing and, as any unfulfilled need, a company will gladly jump in this empty sector to make money outta it.
So, sorry to tell you that but porn as an industry isn't the result of "Patriarchy", just of Capitalism.

Secondly; MALE GAY AREN'T ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, and more importantly GAY RELATIONSHIP AREN'T IMITATING STRAIGHT RELATIONSHIP.
I can't believe I have to explain that to someone who is herself into a homosexual relationship...

Keep in mind, she wasn't saying that gay men were oppressing women with their porn because they're sexually interested in women. Being sexually interested in women IS oppression, but that's not what she was talking about.

In gay porn, usually there is one gay man dominating another by penetrating him. Since penetration is domination, gay porn reinforces the male conquerer/female conquered typology. It's just that, in the case of male porn, the recipient of the conquered and penetrated victim is played by a guy. However, he still plays the typically female role and therefore it's oppressive to women and reinforces the notion of male conqueror/female victim being a normal and accepted thing.

How is being sexually interested in women oppression?
And if women were sexually interested in men wouldn't that mean we are oppressed(I'm a man)?

Okay, let's say a women penetrates herself or another women with a body part. Wouldn't that mean female masturbation is therefore supporting the 'typical female role' and is oppressing other women by doing so? To me it does and therefore, to me, it sounds like you are against all sex and female masturbation.

That's what it looks like to me in my view, not sure if that's what you meant but, that view sounds more oppressive to women then any I have heard in a while.

[Radfems Inc]

Keep in mind, she wasn't saying that gay men were oppressing women with their porn because they're sexually interested in women. Being sexually interested in women IS oppression, but that's not what she was talking about.

In gay porn, usually there is one gay man dominating another by penetrating him. Since penetration is domination, gay porn reinforces the male conquerer/female conquered typology. It's just that, in the case of male porn, the recipient of the conquered and penetrated victim is played by a guy. However, he still plays the typically female role and therefore it's oppressive to women and reinforces the notion of male conqueror/female victim being a normal and accepted thing.

How is being sexually interested in women oppression?

Because women can't meaningfully consent to sex due to the overwhelming effects of the patriarchy.

And if women were sexually interested in men wouldn't that mean we are oppressed(I'm a man)?

No. The patriarchy, such as it is, makes you a dominant person able to meaningfully consent to sex or not. It is therefore not oppression for women to be attracted to you, but it is a symptom of the patriarchy in such women that they are attracted to you. They are the victims in your counter-scenario.

Okay, let's say a women penetrates herself or another women with a body part. Wouldn't that mean female masturbation is therefore supporting the 'typical female role' and is oppressing other women by doing so? To me it does and therefore, to me, it sounds like you are against all sex and female masturbation.

Generally, I don't mind what people do in their own homes, but I would be opposed to pornography depicting the typical penetrator/penetrated conqueror/victim role. Such pornography still reinforces patriarchal notions that sex is about penetration.

That's what it looks like to me in my view, not sure if that's what you meant but, that view sounds more oppressive to women then any I have heard in a while.

My views are not unusual. Note:

As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers. There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death (See factcheckme.wordpress.com for her work on the reproductive harms of PIV, click on the “intercourse series” page or “PIV” in the search bar). If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12 ... s-rape-ok/

[Valyrian Freeholds]

I think I used a different word - sad. I meant it.

Nothing's going to get better for equal rights while self-righteous people, with mindsets similar to Chess, claiming to be for equal rights actually work against it. It's only going to get worse.

Please stop the planet - I want to get off.

It works fine, so, why not?

Quite good
That's how, more or less, political pressure is performed when it comes to gendering issues.
But you just lack a feature, and that's deadly for achieving your purpose: the cultural environment (aka the stereotypes) should be receptive about your claims.
Saying males are harassed even more doesn't meet such criteria, it cannot: because most people automatically associate the word "harassment" with sexual harassment on women.
In other words, you should be able to exploit old stereotypes and take advantage of these old stereotypes instead of fighting it, enforcing people who have this outdated beliefs to act mostly against themselves. It works fine with misogynist tradcons.

I'm saying that Jeremy Corbyn will automatically trust Yvette Cooper without even checking her claims because he's a 66 yo sexist dinosaur.
Just only a nut with an head full of outdated stereotypes can really think women are weaker than males in a virtual environment, where the difference in physical strenght and in economical positions plays no role at all.
But that will not be bad, the opposite: it will be empowering for women. Not so much for males...

Stupid pride and sense of superiority of sexist but goodwillingly males like Jeremy Corbyn have always been, and still are, the best unwillingly ally of Feminism.

No shit he's big tenting it. We've come out of the most sickening period of Blairite, New Labour diversity shite I've ever seen but he still needs to keep the feminists and the minority groups.

[Radfems Inc]

I think I used a different word - sad. I meant it.

Nothing's going to get better for equal rights while self-righteous people, with mindsets similar to Chess, claiming to be for equal rights actually work against it. It's only going to get worse.

Please stop the planet - I want to get off.

It works fine, so, why not?

Quite good
That's how, more or less, political pressure is performed when it comes to gendering issues.
But you just lack a feature, and that's deadly for achieving your purpose: the cultural environment (aka the stereotypes) should be receptive about your claims.
Saying males are harassed even more doesn't meet such criteria, it cannot: because most people automatically associate the word "harassment" with sexual harassment on women.
In other words, you should be able to exploit old stereotypes and take advantage of these old stereotypes instead of fighting it, enforcing people who have this outdated beliefs to act mostly against themselves. It works fine with misogynist tradcons.

I'm saying that Jeremy Corbyn will automatically trust Yvette Cooper without even checking her claims because he's a 66 yo sexist dinosaur.
Just only a nut with an head full of outdated stereotypes can really think women are weaker than males in a virtual environment, where the difference in physical strenght and in economical positions plays no role at all.
But that will not be bad, the opposite: it will be empowering for women. Not so much for males...

Stupid pride and sense of superiority of sexist but goodwillingly males like Jeremy Corbyn have always been, and still are, the best unwillingly ally of Feminism.

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

[The Huskar Social Union]

It works fine, so, why not?




Stupid pride and sense of superiority of sexist but goodwillingly males like Jeremy Corbyn have always been, and still are, the best unwillingly ally of Feminism.

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

Ahahaha please tell me this is a satirical account.

Then again its NSG so probably not.

[The Serbian Empire]

It works fine, so, why not?




Stupid pride and sense of superiority of sexist but goodwillingly males like Jeremy Corbyn have always been, and still are, the best unwillingly ally of Feminism.

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

And let me guess, no transwomen allowed.

[Valyrian Freeholds]

It works fine, so, why not?




Stupid pride and sense of superiority of sexist but goodwillingly males like Jeremy Corbyn have always been, and still are, the best unwillingly ally of Feminism.

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

Woah slowdown there SCUM reader. That's not equality

[Chessmistress]

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

Ahahaha please tell me this is a satirical account.

Then again its NSG so probably not.

I'm pretty sure it's a satirical account.
Otherwise she's just totally misleading my words.

[Radfems Inc]

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

And let me guess, no transwomen allowed.

Let me remind you about transwomen (I'm assuming you mean MtF transition). They are patriarchal invaders trying to invade our female space.

Transwomen don't grow up with the patriarchal oppression that womyn-born-womyn have. They miss that during those critical formative years. They also engage in violent oppression of womyn born womyn when excluded from events that are designed specifically for those womyn.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... -festival/

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And let me guess, no transwomen allowed.

Let me remind you about transwomen (I'm assuming you mean MtF transition). They are patriarchal invaders trying to invade our female space.

Transwomen don't grow up with the patriarchal oppression that womyn-born-womyn have. They miss that during those critical formative years. They also engage in violent oppression of womyn born womyn when excluded from events that are designed specifically for those womyn.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... -festival/

The vaginal juices are drying super fast as I read this. Oh!

[Kisinger]

Because women can't meaningfully consent to sex due to the overwhelming effects of the patriarchy.

So if they can't consent to sex, then how are they able to consent to anything meaningfully?

No. The patriarchy, such as it is, makes you a dominant person able to meaningfully consent to sex or not. It is therefore not oppression for women to be attracted to you, but it is a symptom of the patriarchy in such women that they are attracted to you. They are the victims in your counter-scenario.

Ah yes I'm the dominant one! Oh vey! I'm totally not the one who makes less money, work in a disadvantaged sector of industry, and I don't take the lead role in sex!

So... Any physical attraction a female has regardless of sex automatically makes them the victim?

Generally, I don't mind what people do in their own homes, but I would be opposed to pornography depicting the typical penetrator/penetrated conqueror/victim role. Such pornography still reinforces patriarchal notions that sex is about penetration.

Well let's see.... Sex is penetration which means, I'm assuming, you advocate for the banning of porn because it portrays penetration(sex is purely penetration regardless of how you look at it)?

My views are not unusual. Note:

snip some bs piv bull crap

Oh I understand now, you just don't support sex between a man and a female you could of just stated it outright instead of quoting from a crappy source in general that shows more bias than Fox News.

[Valyrian Freeholds]

And let me guess, no transwomen allowed.

Let me remind you about transwomen (I'm assuming you mean MtF transition). They are patriarchal invaders trying to invade our female space.

Transwomen don't grow up with the patriarchal oppression that womyn-born-womyn have. They miss that during those critical formative years. They also engage in violent oppression of womyn born womyn when excluded from events that are designed specifically for those womyn.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... -festival/

Is that why these "Patriarchal Invaders" are beaten up by other men?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Let me remind you about transwomen (I'm assuming you mean MtF transition). They are patriarchal invaders trying to invade our female space.

Transwomen don't grow up with the patriarchal oppression that womyn-born-womyn have. They miss that during those critical formative years. They also engage in violent oppression of womyn born womyn when excluded from events that are designed specifically for those womyn.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... -festival/

The vaginal juices are drying super fast as I read this. Oh!

Ahhh yes. Clearly I am invading womenhood in as an agent of the patriarchy to oppress my fellow women. Good thinking! This nonsense, ladies and gentlemen, is why you shouldn't take drugs.