You must log in or # to comment.
To me, TERFs are the saddest group of all. They are literally inventing shit to be mad at. That bussy ain’t for you Marta! I’ll take a bit though.
Can one be a TERF without being a RF?
Yes. It’s called being a transphobic bigot.
The TE part contradicts the RF part, so yeah probably. I don’t think they value consistency anyways
Some folks prefer using Feminist Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe instead. A lot of people dismiss it for the acronym, but I think it’s as respectful as they deserve. :)
deleted by creator
I think at this point we should just start calling them female supremacists. I mean they are starting in with the “Gay men are coming over here and taking our jobs!” rhetoric now.
Dey terk er jerbs!
Dey serkd er derks!
Damnit, you win
bussy
I hate this word. :(
bussy bussy bussy bussy bussy bussy
How about pizzussy?
TERFs are just gender fassicts. Which is why they welcome explicit Nazis at their events and JK loves Matt Walsh.
deleted by creator
What? Wait. What? No. Not at all…
-
TERFs are not feminists, seen by the fact that they are fascists. They use the language of “protecting women” to hide bigotry and exclusion while ignoring the core concept of liberation from patriarchy. Pick up any feminist text and youll see a rich history of women allying with queer people. Absolutely nothing about their cause is “just”.
-
Calling persecution of trans women misandry is itself transphobia.
deleted by creator
-
deleted by creator
Hey now, cunts are fun, resilient, and useful. Unlike Marta.
deleted by creator
The most tragic thing about this is that she isn’t even using the word breedable correctly. The traditional meaning of the word, which she is trying to gatekeep, means to produce offspring. Humans breed by procreating with another human to create human children. Vaginas do not breed with other vaginas to create vagina children, so vaginas are not breedable.
Even if you think the slang form of the word breedable this guy used is invalid, he’s still breedable as long as he’s capable of impregnating someone, even if he has no desire to do so.
The difference between technically correct and contextually correct.
You know the argument is getting old when the debate is over semantics rather than the implication of the statement.
Yup^
wow, what a removed
Doesn’t sound like a TERF, just an annoying pedantic linguistic prescriptivist.
its definitely both
Idk how any of you disagree, what do you think “you’ll never be a woman” means
deleted by creator
Where the front at? I’m so ready for the terf war
ACTUALLY, the womb is the most inhospitable place for an embryo to attach. They could attach far easier anywhere else.
Also I think in this context breedable in the gay community means he likes bareback cream pies.
Which seems to be something they both enjoy. you’d think it would bring everyone together.
Everybody likes getting creamed in, Marta. you’re not special
More like Marta should get the fuck out already.
Marta ain’t the brightest
This just reminds me of the Ben Shapiro breadsticks analogy
I’m pretty sure were only months away from artificially constructing sperm / ova from any given human gene sample.
Then you just need a willing partner, maybe a surrogate mother and to hold the beer of your fertility technician.
