itslilith

Yeah, you put it perfectly. Sorry that I was so standoffish as well '^-^. Good point on the spousal rape, I didn't consider it enough. Someone who appears perfectly civil, progressive and feminist might turn out to be a rapist too, and if pregnancy is a possibility, going off impressions alone is a risk you can't take. Thanks for raising that point! And have a nice day c:

don't worry, I fully believe that you meant no harm. I think we're both pretty much in agreement that it is a very reasonable stance for people who can get pregnant to not have sex with people that can get them pregnant. in our current society and political climate that is basic self protection.

where I think we need to be more careful is when it comes to demands of the 4b movement, because that goes beyond individual protection towards political demands. No sex and no children are part of the self protection when it comes to bodily autonomy, but no dating and no marriage are political in nature. A woman might still decide to not have sex nor children, even without the political aspirations of 4b, but still find a male partner to date or marry. Because men, while as a group the main cause of gender inequality, are also not a monolith, and there are many who share the goals of feminism and bodily autonomy.

The 4b movement is a statement then, a boycott of men as a group, if you will. And it is unequivocally wrong to include trans women in that group. Trans women also suffer under patriarchy, maybe in other ways than cis women, but not any less. The question of bodily autonomy is just as much a concern for trans- as it is for cis women (and trans men, in that regard).

I know it's a bit more complicated than that, as (from what I've read) some parts of the movement forswear all relationships and sexual encounters, even WLW relationships, and ask others to do the same. Maybe that's because queer issues are not as prominent in South Korea, so lesbians and bi/pan women aren't taken into consideration as much in the movement. In that case, I see that as a problem as well. But if WLW relationships are accepted in the movement, then it isn't okay to exclude trans women in general.

Of course, no women is obligated to want to date trans women, or any other woman for that matter. And obviously everyone should prioritize their own safety, and if that means no sex with pre-op trans women, or, if sex is integral for your love life, not even dating trans women, then that is also perfectly reasonable. But those must be individual considerations, not broad generalizations. And no one should be condemned for their choice, or lack of choice, in partner.

And that is not even going into how enbies and transmasc people factor in to all this. But I've rambled for long enough, I hope I didn't come across as too preachy. We're on the same side here, I'm pretty sure. I've just seen to many feminist narratives co-opted by hateful people to not be super careful when it comes these topics, so I wanted to nip any opportunity for mischaracterization in the bud. Sorry if that sounded like I was attacking you, in particular. It might even be that the trans angle on the whole movement was exaggerated by biased wikipedia editors, as others have discussed in this thread. If so, sorry again for making this a bigger deal than it is. Have a nice day c:

I don't buy it

a good approach to Ubisoft games

It has a steep learning curve, but it's super nice to use once you're over the initial bump

Okay, I hope you understand why this is wrong to say, right?

• not all intimate relationships involve sex, but even if
• many trans women are sterile. be it from orchiectomy or full-on bottom surgery, but even if not
• many (if not most) trans women are uninterested in or even repulsed to be the penetrating partner during sex, if they are even capable of it

There is a definitive point to be made to avoid penis-in-vagina sex to protect oneself. There is also a certain lysistratite point to denying men, who as a group are predominantly responsible for denying women bodily and social autonomy including reproductive and contraceptive rights, the pleasure of a relationship or sex in general.

But the only reason I see why lesbian relationships, and that includes trans women, should be under scrutiny as well, is bigotry.

I had not heard of this movement before today. Forgive me if my first instinct is to read their Wikipedia, and be off-put by various descriptions of transphobic stances. I agree with the stated goals, and @nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone pointed out that the article might have been manipulated to paint them in a bad light.
If that's the case, then I hope the article gets corrected with proper sources soon, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I don't like that you're insinuating that trans issues, and transphobia in particular, are unrelated to feminism.
I wish everyone earnestly resisting attempts to limit bodily autonomy strength and success in their endeavors.

Really? I still see it, under "Beliefs"

Opposition to transgender rights movements

The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism.[10] Developing out of transgender-exclusionary radical feminism (T.E.R.F.), the movement holds to gender-critical views on sex and gender,[10] supporting gender essentialism and the exclusion of transgender women from feminist spaces.[12][14] Advocates of 4B are opposed to what they call "gender ideology" (젠더론x) and promote excluding transgender women from feminist spaces, as well as romantic or sexual relationships with them (트젠 안사요).[10] In South Korea, members of the 4B have created gatherings exclusively for what they call "biological females" and "real women".[10]

yikes

Thanks for the reply! I missed most of the drama, but yes, it was a mess and I can see why you'd jump to conclusions. I still think that rule 5 should either be removed/reworded or at least supplemented by some guidelines as to what constitutes 'politics', but I realize now this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that with the nuance it deserves. For now, I'm content with some very non-credible coping strategies for all the clusterfucks happening in the world. Thanks for the work you're doing for the community c:

I think both @Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone and me very much care about this community and about how to improve it. Since this is a meta post by a mod, talking about the rules, I thought it's the best place to talk about what we think about certain aspects of the rules, and how they could be abused. This is not an attempt to start up drama or to denigrate any work done by moderators, but an attempt at conversation.

I'm not a fan that that is met with the suggestion to go somewhere else and create a new community. People have grown attached to this community, and I don't think anyone wins in this kind of all or nothing stance.

My apologies if a conversation about rules and their interpretation is not wanted here, but is there any other place to talk about meta topics like this?

It's also a legitimate question: what constitutes politics in the eyes of the moderators? That question cannot be answered without bringing one's own politics into the discussion. Is queer people existing political? Bigots would claim so. Besides, war is just politics though violent means, and satire should also always be political. So being strict on the "no politics" rule is next to impossible, and selective enforcement is often worse than none at all.

I'm gonna second French and Arabic for sheer amount of speakers (native or as secondary language), as well as geographic variety.

Other than that, I would've said that Russian would serve you well in the post-soviet sphere of influence, but that changed recently for obvious reasons. You very likely don't want to travel to Russia, and her neighbors don't look to kindly on Russian either, now. Will still do in a pinch

okay, and one joke answer: Japanese, you'll find weebs to talk to in every country