Intersex is an umbrella term for many different types of intersex conditions, not just ambiguous genitalia, which constitute around 1.7% of the population. Most people with intersex conditions are thus still either female or male. Those born with ambiguous genitals is an extremely small percentage, something like 0.05%, which doesn’t negate that the human species is dimorphic. They would be the only ones who’d actually have a rational reason to be able to “choose” sides, if they so desired. With that information, you can see why this argument is absolutely moot in terms of trans identified people, who are statistically more likely to be a person with no intersex condition whatsoever.
And of course we shouldn’t mutilate their genitals at birth to make them “fit”. I don’t even know why you assume radical feminists would be of such a stance merely because we acknowledge humans as dimorphic or that female oppression is based on biological sex, or for that matter, that we do not believe in ‘gender’ as some sort of innate brain sex. Whether intersex people will want surgery or not is entirely up to them.
mac miller dies of an overdose and of course people decide to pin it on ariana grande. when will people give this woman a break? why is she apparently responsible for every man’s bad actions?
man sexually assaults ariana grande: “its because her dress is too short!”
man dies of an overdose: “its because he was heartbroken by her!”
blaming women for things that they have no control over is blatantly misogyny
man bombs an arena after ariana’s performance, killing 22 people: “it’s because her outfits are too revealing”
Men will literally scramble, will literally trip over themselves to blame the nearest woman for a male’s actions. What’s wrong, do they think males are stupid infants who can’t be held accountable for their own actions and can never be as mature as women?
There is no term more humanizing, appropriate, dignified, and concise with which to refer to adult humans of the female sex than “women”. Let’s break down why other terms with which well-meaning people try to refer to half the human population for the sake of inclusivity are not appropriate.
AFABs (assigned female at birth) – an interesex specific term. Not appropriate to use for non-intersex people, whose sex is observed (often in the womb, before birth), not assigned.
Females – when used as a noun and not an adjective, could just as well be referring to a cow or a chicken, which is dehumanizing. Not appropriate.
Vagina-havers – dehumanizing for the same reasons as above, invasively forces focus on a private area, robbing the woman of the right to be referred to in a dignified way, denies the wholeness of woman, and segments her into parts. Not appropriate.
Egg-producers – this can be used to describe a snake or a chicken. Utterly dehumanizing, reducing a woman not just to her anatomy, but to a bodily function. Severely inappropriate.
People with vaginas – the person-focused is approach is used to talk more humanely about people with illnesses or disorders (people with alcoholism vs. alcoholics, people with insomnia vs. insomniacs, for example). However, neither a vagina, nor any other part of female-specific anatomy is a defect or a disorder. Like vagina-haver, robs the woman of dignity and privacy. Not appropriate.
Female people/humans – out of all of the above, the best term. Humanizing, and related to the specific group in question. However, we already have a single word for a female human.
Prohibition was remembered as something negative because it took away alcohol, something most people see as the passage to a fun time. This is how it is taught in school. We learned about the fun and secrecy of Speakeasys and the danger and excitement of the mob involvement and the grand parties the rich had in stories like Great Gatsby. What we fail to learn is the reason for prohibition and how important that was for women. We fail to learn that (radical) feminists banded together and pushed to pass a law banning the legal drug that is alcohol. Men would come home and beat their wives, girlfriends, and children. Women took the brunt of alcohol abuse and they fought to put an end to it, but now the period that was probably most beneficial for women is considered glorified due to it’s secret affair with alcohol.
We need to stop rewriting, erasing, and vilifying feminist history.
Saloons functioned as men’s clubs, political rackets (did you know the Kennedy family got its start politically and rose to political dynasty because of saloons?), and brewery storefronts. Lunches were sold for almost nothing so men would buy 3 beers. Men who go in after work and drink large amounts of whiskey. They’d blow their paychecks leaving women with no money to buy food and clothing for their children. All this when many women were not able to work and those that did, got paid shit. Saloons made a point of having paintings of naked women on the walls.
Districts in cities where the saloons were most densely located were also full of brothels and gambling houses and places to buy drugs. Your POS husband would disappear for a whole weekend and bring you back an STD when he raped you (which was legal).
There was huge concern for women who were becoming alchohol dependent through the unregulated use of high ABV ‘medicines’ given to women. Alcohol was, and was perceived, as contributing to serious issues in society, especially for women.
And you know what? Prohibition ended saloons. It changed restaurant culture in the US so much that female customers, not male customers, for the first time became a widespread target customer. Organizing for Prohibition helped women develop networks to also campaign for child labor reform and women’s sufferage and child education and a whole host of other concerns.
There’s a reason you’ve only been taught that Prohibition was a failed experiment: because no one wants women to band together so effectively.
Justine Troondeau 