"

Female-assigned intersex kids’ vaginal canal size is also assessed by doctors, to ensure that it’s long enough to fit a penis inside of it. Doctors might surgically construct or re-construct vaginas, which can result in a host of health problems and necessitate multiple, multiple surgeries. This is especially the case since most intersex kids have these surgeries very young, and when their bodies grow into their adult forms, more surgeries are necessary to keep their vagina size in proportion. Non-surgical methods are also used to increase or maintain vaginal length by regularly using medical dildos to stretch the vagina over months and years. (It’s kind of like braces for your vagina, but much, much worse.) Just like there are no standards for how long a clitoris “can” be before it’s classified as a penis, there aren’t absolute standards as to how long a vagina is for it to be of “normal” length.

I had a dilation procedure performed for almost every exam I had with intersex doctors from the time I was 8 until I was 16, so that they could check how long my vagina was as I grew. I absolutely hated these procedures. I mean, imagine a man as old as your father or your grandfather, who you don’t know, inserting a medical dildo into you each time you saw him, knowing that you can’t question the doctor’s orders and just accept that you have to undergo these uncomfortable procedures for your health. Imagine a decade or so later, realizing that these procedures did nothing to track your health, and had everything to do with grown men feeling good about the fact that you could fuck some dude someday like a “normal girl”. That all those traumatizing procedures weren’t actually medically relevant at all, and it actually was within my right to refuse those examinations.

I didn’t know any of that at the time.

I also had no idea that I wouldn’t want to ultimately have the kind of sex they assumed I’d be having, adding yet another layer of this-was-totally-unnecessary/messed-up to my history.

Other kids shouldn’t have to go through this. Other adults shouldn’t have revelations some day far into the future that what was happening to them WASN’T okay, and their traumatic feelings ARE valid, and the whole system of how intersex people are conceptualized and “treated” IS entirely fucked.

And it’s gotta change. We’ve gotta change it.

"

—-Claudia at Autostraddle

I just read this article and was reminded once again how invisible the intersex community often is… we need to signal boost this shit to let people know that this kind of “medical treatment” is NOT okay.

(via bossybussy)

Intersex oppression is patriarchy, it is heterosexism, it is misogyny; it is simultaneously violent and invisible. 

(via angryseawitch)

(via memetrender)

People fucked in Tube stations during the Blitz. Frequently.

lolmythesis:

History, Montana State University

Anonymous said: Can trans women identify as male?

boo-author:

I’m not saying this in a hostile way, but I never understand the point of these questions.

If I were to give you an answer that only depended on the framework I use for understanding my identity and my place in the world, the answer would be no.

A more correct but worse (due to being woefully incomplete) answer, though, would be, yes.

A better answer would be “It depends on what you mean by ‘trans woman’, ‘identify’, and ‘male’.” And by “can”, for that matter. I mean, can a duck identify as a rock? That’s a different question than “would a duck identify as a rock” and “should a duck identify as a rock”, and a less interesting question than “what does it mean for a duck to identify as a rock?”

Sometimes I check off a box or select an option that identifies me as male, out of necessity. I carry a card which identifies me as male, because this card is needed to confirm my legal identity. In that sense I “identify myself as male”. Is that the same thing as identifying as male? It’s an action I take out of necessity, under duress. I attach no significance to it because dwelling on it exacerbates dysphoria. I’m simply playing a game by the rules that are required of me.

My standpoint is that whatever there is about me that can be constructed as male under whatever framework, that’s not *who* I am. It’s not my identity.

I used to say, “I have a male body. I also have a toothbrush. I am not a toothbrush. Having isn’t being.”

That still sums up my feelings on the subject of identity, but I don’t say that anymore. I don’t see any purpose in pointing out for myself that there are frameworks which would judge my body or its parts as male when the whole world will rush to do so anyway. It’s largely accepted as “objective fact”. I’m more interested in opening people’s minds to the fact that these are just constructed frameworks and that they aren’t the only ones. The people who are invested in framing me as male will argue the validity of those frameworks without my help.

There are trans women who operate with the understanding that their bodies are male, under a binary framework rooted in simplified biology. Are they wrong? Not broadly, no.

Is that the same as “identifying” as male? Not to me. I wouldn’t think it was to them, but you’d have to ask them. Well, no, don’t. Don’t ever ask a trans woman if she identifies as male. Because (as this reply indicates), what does that even mean? And why do you need to know? If they’re talking about it, though, listen to them.

…and then there are trans women who totally and aggressively identify as male, because they’ve bought into biological essentialism hard. They say things like “I’m a male assimilated into womanhood,” and on the basis of this identity—which they project across all trans women—lobby against trans rights and even trans existence.

But again, I don’t understand what is even the point of this question and questions like this. I feel like at best the people who ask things like this are looking for a simple pat answer, so they can diagram the world into a set of simple rows and columns with yes-no answers and no overlap or fuzziness and at worst they’re looking to create rhetorical/semantic “traps” so they can turn around and say, “GOTCHA!” about something later.

If you want a simple answer to any question of “can _______ identify as _______”, the answer is the same as if you ended the question two words earlier. If someone is capable of identifying, they are capable of identifying as _______. Is it necessarily going to be a meaningful identity? No. Does the fact that they can mean that they should or that it’s harmless for them to do so? No. Is this a meaningful answer? No. Is it a useful answer? No.

It’s a meaningless, useless question. Figure out what you really want to know and ask that instead.

Figure out what you really want to know and ask that instead.

Anonymous said: laff @ terfs but trans people are people who feel sex dysphoria; they are not bilogically the sex they identify as & that doesn't mean ppl should stop using sex based terms. Your sex has medical & bio consequences & by trying to erase that in denying that sex is biology based & sex-based discrimination. So there IS female biology. Females have uteruses and vaginas. Males have penises. It's biology.

boo-author:

Here’s the thing you’re missing.

When I say I’m female and my body is female, I am not denying my anatomy or (presumed) chromosomes.

I’m also not talking about it.

I could tell you what I had for dinner last night without mentioning evolution, but that’s not denying evolution. It’s talking about two different things.

Let me go back to my post about biological reality. If I had been raised by an adoptive mother and I said, “You’re my real mother, Mom, and I love you.”, would you be here saying this stuff? 

Genetic inheritance is real! Heredity has consequences! I personally have a condition that can only be passed down through mitochondrial DNA (which means it comes from the egg donor). Now, I was raised by my birth mother, but say I wasn’t.

Is it impossible, in your mind, for me to say “I love you, Mom” to a hypothetical adoptive mother and also acknowledge that I have this condition I inherited through my mitochondrial DNA from someone else?

If that’s not impossible to you, then congratulations… you’re one step closer to understanding the conversation you’re trying to speak over.

As a sidenote:

It’s worth mentioning that the framework we use to understand biological sex is grossly simplified, in much the same way that our everyday understanding of gravity is.

We mainly go through life thinking that up is up, down is down, and that the only thing with gravity is the earth beneath our feet.. but “beneath” is an arbitrary concept and every single object is exerting a gravitational pull on every other one. How can we be so wrong? Because the everyday model of gravity gets us through our everyday life.

The same is true of our everyday model of “biological sex”, although part of the reason it suffices for us is because of sexist and cissexist assumptions built into it and the desire for a neat, orderly and utterly dichotomous binary. If we broke down the assumptions about the gender binary built into patriarchy, this model would no longer serve.

But this is a sidenote. Because when I say, “I am female. My body is a female body.”, I am not talking about biology. The nature of biological sex has as little to do with the conversation as the nature of a Volkswagen Jetta does.

brynndragon:

cabell:

thespectreofliberty:

neoliberalismkills:

genderbitch:

gravekat:

softkats:

pizzatomb:

aside from being cissexist the whole XX = female and XY = male thing is Straight-Up Wrong

AFAB people can have XO, XXX, XXXX and XY chromosomes while AMAB people have have XXYY, XYY, and XX chromosomes and since the majority of the population never has their karyotype examined,  they’ll never know that they have one of these chromosomal quirks unless that specific combination has associated symptoms, and not all of them do. you could literally have one of the aforementioned combinations without even knowing it and meanwhile you’re insisting that all AFAB people are XX and that anyone else who has this must also be female

we could also talk about how hormonal patterns for XX persons can naturally and biologically mirror that of a typical XY person, or vis versa, which gives rise to things like androgen insensitivity disorder. here u have it, folks, an whole group of intersex people who have XY chromosomes and testicles and vulva and vagina, all grown naturally, all at the same time. 

the number of people who are intersex mirror the number of people who are born with red hair, but no one goes around trying to say that red isn’t a natural hair colour just because the phenotype doesn’t manifest in the majority of the population. 

Welp

I’m just gonna go ahead and reblog this once a week

reminder in light of recent events

Yup. “Biological sex” is not actually a useful concept.

Certainly not the way we usually use it. It’s actually pretty useful when we want to remind ourselves that gender is a social construct since a biological gender binary does not and has never existed. We are not computers for fuck’s sake.

Right, but even in that context, “biological” is actually a fairly vague descriptor.  We can talk about chromosomal sex, or observed genitalia, or secondary physiological sex characteristics, or sex hormones—all of those are “biological” and as noted by OP and others, don’t occur in the same constellation every time. “Biological” is a pretty big gloss.

(Source: exeggcute, via benndragon)

thespectreofliberty:

neoliberalismkills:

genderbitch:

gravekat:

softkats:

pizzatomb:

aside from being cissexist the whole XX = female and XY = male thing is Straight-Up Wrong

AFAB people can have XO, XXX, XXXX and XY chromosomes while AMAB people have have XXYY, XYY, and XX chromosomes and since the majority of the population never has their karyotype examined,  they’ll never know that they have one of these chromosomal quirks unless that specific combination has associated symptoms, and not all of them do. you could literally have one of the aforementioned combinations without even knowing it and meanwhile you’re insisting that all AFAB people are XX and that anyone else who has this must also be female

we could also talk about how hormonal patterns for XX persons can naturally and biologically mirror that of a typical XY person, or vis versa, which gives rise to things like androgen insensitivity disorder. here u have it, folks, an whole group of intersex people who have XY chromosomes and testicles and vulva and vagina, all grown naturally, all at the same time. 

the number of people who are intersex mirror the number of people who are born with red hair, but no one goes around trying to say that red isn’t a natural hair colour just because the phenotype doesn’t manifest in the majority of the population. 

Welp

I’m just gonna go ahead and reblog this once a week

reminder in light of recent events

Yup. “Biological sex” is not actually a useful concept.

(Source: exeggcute, via gayabortions)

Does this exist anywhere?

So basically, this is my dream list of criteria that a sex ed/general puberty resource for my kids would meet:

  • Discusses masturbation for everyone in a positive light (without suggesting that everyone HAS to do it)
  • Discusses consent in a framework of “say yes to things you want to do and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to do things; say no to things you don’t want to do and there’s nothing wrong with not wanting to do things”
  • Discusses bodies and body changes in an explicitly fat-accepting framework
  • Discusses mental health and illness and the biological AND social factors that influence them
  • Discusses menstruation in a way that acknowledges the wide variation in experiences of menstruating people, neither dismissing bad experiences/dislike of menstruating nor unnecessarily medicalizing it
  • Discusses abortion as a medical procedure that many people seek for various reasons, without suggesting that it is common to regret receiving one
  • EDIT: Represents POC and PWD throughout (thanks, @schemingreader)
  • Discusses sexual orientation with explicit acknowledgment of non-monosexual and asexual people
  • Discusses gender and sex as both personal/internal and socially influenced (that is, does NOT say they are nothing but social categories and thus meaningless; also does NOT treat them as inextricably linked and/or immutable)
  • Explicitly discusses gender identity, avoiding binary categorization
  • Acknowledges wide variation in “biological” traits within sexes, and mentions that there are more than two sexes
  • Does not use “opposite” sex/gender language
  • Discusses puberty blockers
  • Addresses and challenges pervasive harmful mainstream messages about all of these things

…It’s possibly not surprising that I was not satisfied with the first thing I looked at.  But is there anything out there that satisfies all these requirements?  And if there isn’t… is this the kind of thing that people would like to see kickstarted?

Day 9: Something You’re Reading: Asking About Sex & Growing Up by Joanna Cole & Bill Thomas.
I paid $5 for the Kindle version of this sex ed book and it only took ~30 seconds to find & read the “What happens when a young girl gets pregnant” section and determine that I will NEVER give it to my kids. I didn’t have a lot of hope for finding an option that wasn’t cissexist, but on top of that, apparently if you have an abortion you WILL feel terrible “for a very long time.” F this book.

Day 9: Something You’re Reading: Asking About Sex & Growing Up by Joanna Cole & Bill Thomas.

I paid $5 for the Kindle version of this sex ed book and it only took ~30 seconds to find & read the “What happens when a young girl gets pregnant” section and determine that I will NEVER give it to my kids. I didn’t have a lot of hope for finding an option that wasn’t cissexist, but on top of that, apparently if you have an abortion you WILL feel terrible “for a very long time.” F this book.

Anonymous said: lol, yea ok. so you're telling me that if you had a daughter and she became basically the worlds bicycle, you would high five her and be like "here's a condom, go out there and do yo thang". no one wants to be seen as basically a sex object. I've seen so many women get mad when guys only text or call them for sex because that's what their known for then they get mad at me when the same guy texts me to have an actual conversation.

cabell:

kate-wisehart:

raptorific:

If I had a daughter, I’d teach her the risks and benefits involved in sex and let her make up her own damn mind, because she’s her own person with her own god damn free will, asshole.

She’d definitely be taught about contraception, and she’d be aware that it is not guaranteed protection, but if, after having all the information, she decides that she’s willing to take those risks with another consenting party, then that’s her own choice. She would never be taught that sex is bad, though. As you know, nothing works better at keeping teenagers from doing something than their parents insisting they shouldn’t. Honestly, I’m not going to teach her that abstinence is the only way. She’s going to know that sex is fun, she’s going to know that it’s risky, and she’s going to know the best ways to minimize those risks.

If my hypothetical daughter were legally competent to provide consent, then she would officially be too old for me to tell her she should not do so. At that point, the choice belongs to her. It’s not my job to keep her abstinent.

It would, however, be my job to make sure she gets through life as safely and happily as possible. It’s safe to assume that, at some point in her life, my daughters might have sex, and when that happens, they’re going to know that it’s nothing to be ashamed of, and they’re going to know how to minimize the risks. Putting a taboo on sex and refusing to teach about methods of contraception other than abstinence is a really big contributing reason we keep seeing teenage pregnancies.

And yeah, if my daughter was proud of herself for practicing safe sex with consenting partners, I would totally give her a high five, and I wouldn’t need to give her condoms because she’d have already learned how to get them for herself, which would be another thing that would make me proud.

Also, I think the problem with the guys you mentioned who text people only for sex is that you know a lot of douchebag men. Maybe it’s the fault of the guys that they objectify women, not the fault of the women who are being objectified. It sounds to me like those guys were having at least as much sex as those ladies, but don’t seem to be getting judged nearly as much.

(Hint: You should not judge anyone, regardless of gender or any other factor, on their consensual sexual choices if it does not concern you. What two consenting parties do behind closed doors is their own damn business.)

Also, using the phrase “world’s bicycle” to describe somebody who has a lot of sex is saying that women who enjoy sex are equivalent to objects. You are the one objectifying women. You are the one viewing women as sex objects. The blame for sexually active women being viewed as sex objects does not fall on sexually active women, it falls on you and people like you who view them as objects.

This is sex positivity I can get behind: refusing to shame anyone for having sex, and refusing to shame anyone for not having sex, but making sure that everyone has information that should be FREELY AVAILABLE about their own bodies and ways to protect them. Because it’s none of my damn business whether other people are having sex.

I DO have a daughter (as far as we know) and it’s pretty gross how often people assume I must now have realized the “error of my ways” in regard to my position on female sexuality.

Like, no, actually, I still just want my kid to think of sex as an activity that people may or may not want to engage in, under various conditions, with no partner or one partner or multiple partners, and with varying degrees of frequency.  I want her to have the knowledge and tools to engage in safer, wanted (on all sides) sex when/if she decides she’s ready for it.  I will want the same thing if it turns out that my child is not my daughter, and for any other non-daughter children I might have.  The end.

P.S. I have known dudes who only contacted me for sex.  Sometimes it annoyed me and sometimes it didn’t—it was basically a question of how I felt about them and having sex with them.  OH WOW WOMEN DON’T ALL THINK ONE THING, ALL THE TIME.

Also, as brownfemipower points out on Twitter, it’s a pretty serious mistake to assume that all teens having (a lot of) sex are having it CONSENSUALLY.

A necessary component of the kind of parental teaching about sex I’m talking about here is providing as safe a space as possible for children and adolescents to talk about their bodies & experiences, including experiences of fear, discomfort, abuse, assault, etc.

I have fucked this up badly with other adults in the past, and I can’t fix that. But I think about it a lot, and I think about how to do better by my kids.

Anonymous said: lol, yea ok. so you're telling me that if you had a daughter and she became basically the worlds bicycle, you would high five her and be like "here's a condom, go out there and do yo thang". no one wants to be seen as basically a sex object. I've seen so many women get mad when guys only text or call them for sex because that's what their known for then they get mad at me when the same guy texts me to have an actual conversation.

kate-wisehart:

raptorific:

If I had a daughter, I’d teach her the risks and benefits involved in sex and let her make up her own damn mind, because she’s her own person with her own god damn free will, asshole.

She’d definitely be taught about contraception, and she’d be aware that it is not guaranteed protection, but if, after having all the information, she decides that she’s willing to take those risks with another consenting party, then that’s her own choice. She would never be taught that sex is bad, though. As you know, nothing works better at keeping teenagers from doing something than their parents insisting they shouldn’t. Honestly, I’m not going to teach her that abstinence is the only way. She’s going to know that sex is fun, she’s going to know that it’s risky, and she’s going to know the best ways to minimize those risks.

If my hypothetical daughter were legally competent to provide consent, then she would officially be too old for me to tell her she should not do so. At that point, the choice belongs to her. It’s not my job to keep her abstinent.

It would, however, be my job to make sure she gets through life as safely and happily as possible. It’s safe to assume that, at some point in her life, my daughters might have sex, and when that happens, they’re going to know that it’s nothing to be ashamed of, and they’re going to know how to minimize the risks. Putting a taboo on sex and refusing to teach about methods of contraception other than abstinence is a really big contributing reason we keep seeing teenage pregnancies.

And yeah, if my daughter was proud of herself for practicing safe sex with consenting partners, I would totally give her a high five, and I wouldn’t need to give her condoms because she’d have already learned how to get them for herself, which would be another thing that would make me proud.

Also, I think the problem with the guys you mentioned who text people only for sex is that you know a lot of douchebag men. Maybe it’s the fault of the guys that they objectify women, not the fault of the women who are being objectified. It sounds to me like those guys were having at least as much sex as those ladies, but don’t seem to be getting judged nearly as much.

(Hint: You should not judge anyone, regardless of gender or any other factor, on their consensual sexual choices if it does not concern you. What two consenting parties do behind closed doors is their own damn business.)

Also, using the phrase “world’s bicycle” to describe somebody who has a lot of sex is saying that women who enjoy sex are equivalent to objects. You are the one objectifying women. You are the one viewing women as sex objects. The blame for sexually active women being viewed as sex objects does not fall on sexually active women, it falls on you and people like you who view them as objects.

This is sex positivity I can get behind: refusing to shame anyone for having sex, and refusing to shame anyone for not having sex, but making sure that everyone has information that should be FREELY AVAILABLE about their own bodies and ways to protect them. Because it’s none of my damn business whether other people are having sex.

I DO have a daughter (as far as we know) and it’s pretty gross how often people assume I must now have realized the “error of my ways” in regard to my position on female sexuality.

Like, no, actually, I still just want my kid to think of sex as an activity that people may or may not want to engage in, under various conditions, with no partner or one partner or multiple partners, and with varying degrees of frequency.  I want her to have the knowledge and tools to engage in safer, wanted (on all sides) sex when/if she decides she’s ready for it.  I will want the same thing if it turns out that my child is not my daughter, and for any other non-daughter children I might have.  The end.

P.S. I have known dudes who only contacted me for sex.  Sometimes it annoyed me and sometimes it didn’t—it was basically a question of how I felt about them and having sex with them.  OH WOW WOMEN DON’T ALL THINK ONE THING, ALL THE TIME.

"Girls are not machines that you put kindness coins into until sex falls out."

Porphyria R’lyeh

(via bmoreprincess)

(Source: bitchebitch, via angelsscream)

"Lately I’ve been considering how “slut shaming” grew – unacknowledged – from the experiences and intellectual contributions of sex workers who first identified “whore stigma.” Slut shaming exists now as a critique external to sex worker feminisms and politics, applied mostly by women without sex work experience to describe the loss of social capital they suffer when assumed to be whores. What’s been lost is the centering of people who are marked as whores, in the assumption so common within attempts to resist “slut shaming” that being a whore is the worst thing to happen to you. So long as we cling to that notion of the slut or whore as the ultimate outsider, we reinforce whore stigma. This should be obvious."

On whore stigma and slut shaming | postwhoreamerica (via ardhra)

(via dangercupcakemurdericing)

"I’m a genius, and I’m confused."

A cisgender character named Temperance Brennan on the tv show Bones, when told she ought to use female pronouns for a deceased trans woman. (via southcarolinaboy)

I watch Bones regularly, but it’s getting a lot more difficult for me to enjoy the show. At its heart, it is deeply normative about sex and gender—puritanical about the former and essentialist about the latter.  (I’m assuming this quote was pulled from last night’s episode, which I haven’t seen yet.)

genderbitch:

widdershinsgirl:

genderbitch:

widdershinsgirl:

freedominwickedness:

Minnesota Court Makes Historic Trans Rights Ruling

In a landmark ruling which is being completely ignored by not only the mainstream media but also the gay-centric LGb(t) media, a federal court ruled yesterday that a trans person may not be treated differently than a cis person of the same legal gender for the purpose of marriage. It might seem downright frivolous, but local courts in New York, Kansas, Ohio, Texas, and Florida had all previously ruled that trans people still count as their birth-assigned gender for the purpose of marriage regardless of their legal gender.

In this case, a union health insurance fund sought to establish the same bigotry in Minnesota by cancelling a couple’s joint health insurance after discovering that the wife was a trans woman. The fund claimed that Minnesota’s anti-same-sex marriage law should be interpreted to also prohibit opposite-sex marriages in which one partner is trans. The court emphatically rejected this reasoning, declaring,

“The Fund’s interpretation of Minnesota law was unreasonable and wrong. Minnesota law recognizes the Radtkes’ marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman because Minnesota law recognizes Plaintiff’s sex as female… . It was not the Fund’s role to impose its own definitions of gender and marriage upon its participants. In this case, the Fund ignored all evidence of the State of Minnesota’s view of Plaintiff’s sex and marital status. The Fund’s decision was not only wrong, under a de novo review, it was a flagrant violation of its duty under any standard of review.”

What makes this ruling totally historic is that it is the first time a federal court has ever ruled in favor of trans marriage equality, and only the second time any court has ruled in favor of trans marriage equality. Furthermore, it is the first break in a decades-long streak of hostile court rulings, and the first ruling which broadly upholds legal gender rather than examining private parts; the previous favorable ruling was explicitly based on “sexual functionality” and therefore only applied to post-op trans people.

This is a huge step forward for LGBT rights, and the fact that it’s being widely ignored is a sobering reminder that the “gay rights first and only” agenda has complete control of the established LGb(t) political movement.

“The Plan was unambiguously written to allow all persons who are legal spouses under Minnesota law to be eligible family dependents. The Fund’s role was to ascertain Minnesota law. It was not the Fund’s role to impose its own definitions of gender and marriage upon its participants. In this case, the Fund ignored all evidence of the State of Minnesota’s view of Plaintiff’s sex and marital status. The Fund’s decision was not only wrong, under a de novo review, it was a flagrant violation of its duty under any standard of review. In sum, the Fund erred when it terminated Plaintiff’s participation as an eligible family dependent. The Fund’s termination of Ms. Radtke is reversed and she is reinstated as a participant as of April 19, 2010.”

Not to piss on a good parade (cuz hey, marriage equality for trans folks is great and all) but I’m not liking the whole “this is a huge step forward for LGBT rights” line in there considering all the poverty and homelessness faced by queer and trans* youth (especially women with disabilities of color in those two groups, most often in the trans zone) and the ridiculous levels of lethal violence faced by trans women of color specifically. A huge step would be combating that shit with the level of tenacity people throw at marriage equality.

Cuz yanno, people are starving, turning to crime, committing suicide, being assaulted and fucking dying and all. But marriage and pageants. Huge deal, right? “Huge steps”.

The more important thing that was buried in this decision that we didn’t get to right away is Judge Davis’ formally defining what should have been obvious all along (but wasn’t): That trans people’s changed legal sex is their sex, period, and previous statuses are irrelevant.

Ahhh, I see. That’s a lot bigger than marriage. 

(via exceedinglytrans)

"The Dianics are upset that we’re challenging their practices and they are protesting that they have a perfect right to build their religion around cisfemale experiences such as menstruating and childbirth, and no one who is not a cis woman could possibly understand. Some of this is true - they have a perfect right to do that. However, that no one but a cis woman could understand these experiences is NOT true. A trans* man could understand them. A cis woman who had a hysterectomy would likely feel excluded (and several such women have been trying to talk about the exclusion they feel when they try to participate in such ‘feminine’ mysteries). What about one of my best friends, who has Cogenital Adrenal Hydroplasia? She’s assigned female, genderqueer, and her chromosomes do not match her assignment, but she has a womb and a vagina. She menstruates irregularly and trying to have a child would probably kill her. Where does she fit in? Where do men with XXY chromosomes or XYY chromosomes fit in? Think that’s too rare to matter? It’s not. 1 in 300 men who are assigned male at birth and identify as cis men do not actually have an XY chromsome. Does Z. Budapest even know SHE is a genetic woman? Has she had a DNA test to find out? When you peel back the thick skin of human ignorance of sex and gender, when you see the wondrous diversity of human sex and gender and how it absolutely does NOT fit neatly into two easily-labeled boxes, you begin to see how phrases like ‘genetic women only’ are ludicrous, ignorant, and hurtful."

Sonneillonv of Dreamwidth, about a ritual at Pantheacon that was restricted to “genetic women only” (via ragnell)

(via evelark)