And then here it comes, the chapter about trans motherhood. Suddenly all the premises are thrown out of the window and the same author who was able to describe patriarchy and the origin of the female discrimination, doesn't beat an eye when talking about pregnant TIFs and lactating TIMs.
TIFs claim oppression because when they enter the hospital they are called mothers. The author supports that and claims that they are real fathers because that's their identity and that society must accept that even a man can get pregnant. How. Why. How.
Or maybe, here’s just a thought: this author, who you yourself say has a perfectly good take on everything else, isn’t somehow 100% wrong on this. Maybe, just maybe, she sees something that you don’t. Maybe… heavens forbid… you are even wrong.
That’s what an open-minded, intelligent person would likely think: “Hey, I agree with everything else here except this one thing… maybe I should rethink it? Take a closer look and consider if my view is as well-considered as I thought?”
But no, gender-critical ideology can never be wrong! Banish the heretical doubts!
About TIMs, the author says that they are more interested in lactating their child rather than bear them. Lol. How she can't see the fetish behind this it's a mystery to me.
I don’t know, maybe because she hasn’t been infected by gender-critical brain worms, so doesn’t see perversion and danger in literally everything that in any way relates to trans women?
But no. The GC articles of faith clearly state that we trans women are and can only be sex-obsessed, fetishistic monsters; this is the entire truth, and it allows for no exceptions!
How can the author not see the obvious truth of your precepts, and the only possible conclusion? Truly, it is a mystery!
(And you are not at all the equivalent of a religious zealot who cannot comprehend why others can’t see how obviously true your faith is…)
About TIMs, the author says that they are more interested in lactating their child rather than bear them.
I don’t know where the author draws her claim from; did she do or cite any actual research? Is it an anecdotal impression?
But I can easily think of a logical explanation for that preference among trans women if it’s real.
And that is: currently, trans women simply aren’t able to bear children through pregnancy. It is, at most, a distant dream that one day this will be possible.
On the other hand, a trans woman breastfeeding a child is entirely possible in today’s world. It is an actually achievable goal. Hence, it makes sense that this would take priority in many trans women’s minds.
Especially when she wrote so many paragraphs in the previous chapters about the fact that motherhood is not defined by lactation.
I’m reminded of that Star Wars line: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
Likewise, only a gender-critter deals in binaries (ironic, I know, given how they all profess to be gender abolitionists out to destroy the gender binary!).
TERFs have such a tendency to insist on the strictest, most limited definitions for everything, which allow for zero ambiguity.
But here’s the thing: something can be related to a term, but without being a necessary part of it or defining it.
In that vein, lactation, or breastfeeding, isn’t necessarily a part of motherhood, and doesn’t define it. However, it’s rather often a part of what being a mother entails. It is commonly one part of motherhood, but not necessarily so.
Still, many mothers do see it as part of motherhood for themselves personally (without thereby implying that it has to be so for everyone), and do want to breastfeed their babies.
So, @LasagnaRossa, understanding the author’s point requires you to do something very painful for the minds of your kind: to accept that the world is not black and white, that not everything is clear cut and perfectly defined, and that sometimes lines are blurry and fuzzy.
And that it’s okay for that to be so. Life is full of ambiguities, imperfections, and haziness.
Sometimes… that’s even part of the beauty in life.
This chapter kinda ruined the book to me, which is sad because otherwise it's a great book. I'm more sad that smart feminists fell for the gender trap. In my eyes it's similar to read a scientific book and then find a chapter all about God and its powers.
How can they fall for it? How can you support trans people's delusions on one hand and on the other hand pointing the finger that the root of all female discrimination is the ability to create life?
I’ll be blunt: this is a question you are not equipped to answer, as long as you remain limited by the worldview prescribed by gender-critical ideology.
In order to understand, to find an answer to the ‘Why?’ that you ask, you have to look at these things from the outside.
The outside beyond the strict confines of GC ideology.
Until you do that… you will always remain baffled, and think that something is fundamentally wrong with non-GC people.
In other words, you can either keep believing that everyone who in any way accepts trans people and trans rights is at best a credulous idiot… or you can accept that your ideology may actually be fallible.
Of course, like any GC true believer, you’ll choose the former. Every single time.
