Real question: do you all things like moods/temperament be genetic?
Knowing how my mother is, I wouldn’t doubt I got my easy anger and “willingness to fuck shit up” from my mother’s sperm donor. Don’t quite know how I feel about that though
One of the most important questions that science can answer is “does this medical treatment work?”. In an ideal world, scientists would be able to tackle this question objectively and dispassionately, and impartial science communicators would summarise the available evidence in a fair and balanced way.
We do not, of course, live in an ideal world — and the truth about medical treatments can often be clouded by ideology, passionate beliefs or deliberate misinformation. This is often because questions that may appear to be narrow matters of fact turn out to be intimately linked with identities. So, the issue of whether dexamethasone cures Covid became a matter of political identity (particularly once President Trump championed it). Similarly, homeopathy is about much more than just believing that highly dilute solutions of certain substances can cure diseases. Homeopaths sign up to a philosophical worldview at odds with mainstream medicine and science in profound ways.
I discovered myself just how strong feelings can be when I made a BBC Science film which explained why homeopathy is very unlikely to be effective. In response, a French scientist (once highly regarded) wrote me a letter suggesting my blood be used as a cure-all (a homeopathic in-joke since the more toxic the substance the more effective it is as a treatment when prepared homeopathically).
The interplay of medicine and identity perhaps explains why currently the most poisonous of all topics is that of transgender medicine. This is a subject where identity is at the very heart of the issue. How we should treat people with gender dysphoria (particularly children and adolescents) has become a highly charged area where mere evidence plays second fiddle to which side of the ideological divide you’re on. Nowhere is the toxicity of this issue more clearly shown than in the goings-on at the Science Based Medicine (SBM) Website. SBM is a long-running blog, founded by Dr Steve Novella a clinical neurologist, and co-edited by Dr David Gorski, a surgical oncologist. The blog aims to present medical information based on the principles of science and was founded explicitly to combat pseudoscience. If ever a science based approach was needed, it’s for this topic.
To that end, SBM recently published a review of a book, Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier that questions the current practice of prescribing hormone-blockers to trans-identifying children. The book makes the case that a new phenomenon is spreading rapidly — of teenage girls suddenly identifying as trans despite no previous history of gender discomfort.
Shrier believes this is a social craze, spread by peer influence and turbo-charged by social media. It’s not unusual for girls going through puberty to feel unhappy with their bodies and to have a desperate need to carve out their own identities. What concerns Shrier is that girls who identify as trans are now placed onto a pathway of medical treatment, starting with hormone-blockers that delay puberty, that leads almost inexorably to further hormone treatment and even surgery with irreversible consequences including breast removal, lifelong infertility and the possibility of terrible regret.
Is Shrier right? The short answer is we don’t know. There’s a terrifying paucity of good quality science in this area. We don’t even have the most basic data such as how many boys and girls identify as trans or how the incidence is changing. The SBM review concluded that Shrier’s book raised legitimate grounds for concern whilst the lack of good scientific studies makes firm conclusions impossible. That nuanced article didn’t last long. Within days SBM had removed the article, apparently because it was “below the minimal acceptable standard”. This is the only article on SBM ever to have been retracted, a particularly astonishing decision since it was written not by some one-off contributor, but by Dr Harriet Hall, one of the site’s 3 editors (along with Novella and Gorski) who has written over 700 articles for the blog.
Clearly something extraordinary is going on; either a highly experienced doctor and blogger has written something so egregious it — uniquely for SBM — had to be retracted, or Novella and Gorski (N&G) removed a perfectly good article for ideological reasons. You can read the withdrawn review republished here to make up your own mind.
An explanation, of sorts, appeared a few days later with the publication of a piece written by N&G themselves which summarises the Shrier book and the evidence surrounding it. Almost as soon as it was published, the suspicion was raised that N&G had written their article without actually having read the book, so thin was their understanding of the book’s contents. They’ve since confirmed to me via email that they had not in fact finished reading the book at the time but said that “David has read the introduction and first couple of chapters” (how much if any Steve Novella has read is unstated). Their justification is that they were critiquing Hall’s review — not the book itself. But a brief read of their article shows this to be disingenuous. Indeed they conclude that the book’s central claim “is not supported by any evidence and is cobbled together with a gross misreading of the scientific evidence.” It’s hard to see how you could justify reaching such a conclusion without the basic courtesy of reading the book you criticise. Rather they seem to have come to a view without even having to open the book, telling me “the title of the book in and of itself is very inflammatory”.
Their article goes on to examine the evidence relating to the claims in Shrier’s book and was followed by several further blogs written by guest writers all of which reach a similar conclusion — that Shrier is entirely wrong. There’s nothing wrong in publishing opinion pieces offering a different perspective from Hall’s review but — as so often when it comes to the trans issue — only one side of the issue is allowed. Worse, these almost unreadable pieces are riddled with errors, misrepresentations and half-truths, giving the lie to the notion that the only thing wrong with Hall’s article was its accuracy. Hats off to the writers who have documented in excruciating detail the many problems with these articles:
Since it would take volumes to detail all the problems, I’m going to concentrate just on the article by N&G and on one specific question: are hormone and hormone-blocking treatments effective for the teenage girls described in Abigail Shrier’s book?
Firstly N&G describe puberty-suppressing hormones as fully reversible (no evidence provided). And yet the NHS information page states “Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria … It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones.” The WPATH guidelines specifically linked to in the N&G article state “there are concerns about negative physical side effects of GnRH analogue use” (for instance, on bone development and height) and in particular that there are “adolescents who will never develop reproductive function in their natal sex due to blockers or cross-gender hormones. At this time there is no technique for preserving function from the gonads of these individuals.” At best it’s questionable how reversible hormone-blockers are, but N&G seem happy to disregard any uncertainty on the issue.
The crucial question a blog like SBM should be asking is “do hormone altering treatments work for transgender children and adolescents”? You might expect their article, titled as it is “The Science of Transgender Treatment”, to be packed full of scientific evidence. Yet only two studies on this topic are linked to. The first is a 2020 study which G&N say found that hormonal therapy in trans teens decreased suicidal ideation. In fact the study found no statistically significant improvement for female-to-male youths (the demographic relevant to Shrier’s book) in any measure. Nor do they find any significant difference in suicidal ideation in any group. But it gets worse. This was a longitudinal study with no control group — so even if there had been a difference it would be impossible to say it was due to the treatment. Imagine if a homeopath had shown that in a group of people with flu, all given homeopathic remedies, some of them had improved with time. Novella and Gorski would rightly have considered this evidence worthless.
The other quotedstudy is even less convincing: a survey asking transgender adults to self report the treatments they received as teenagers. Such studies are prone to so many sources of error and bias that they could only be considered the very weakest form of evidence and certainly not sufficient to reach any conclusions on effectiveness. Normally the hallmark of a science-based approach is that any quoted study is properly placed in context with a clear assessment of the strength of evidence provided. Yet N&G quote these two studies with not a single mention of their very great weaknesses.
N&G cryptically say “there are more studies” (no citations given) but one would presume they have chosen the 2 most convincing examples. And yet N&G go on to conclude “there is copious evidence supporting the conclusion that the benefits of gender affirming interventions outweigh the risks”. I think I’ve shown that the evidence gets nowhere near that level of certainty. But you don’t need to take my word for it. You can read the assessment of NICE (the UK’s highly regarded National Institute of Health and Care Excellence) which concludes that the outcomes from hormone blockers are of “questionable clinical value”, and that “the studies themselves are not reliable and changes could be due to confounding, bias or chance.” A review of post-puberty hormone treatment reached similar conclusions.
Or read the review from the BMJ Evidence Based Medicine Blog, which concludes: “There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn” and wonders whether the use of such drugs is justified given they “can cause substantial harms and even death”. Such comprehensive reviews from respected sources would normally be prize nuggets for a science based blog. Why N&G fail to even mention them is left for the reader to ponder.
The brutal truth is we have virtually no good-quality scientific data on how best to treat children and adolescents with gender dysphoria — and know even less about the sorts of cases described in Shrier’s book. This is scarcely surprising given the deeply toxic nature of this topic, where any scientist who presents the “wrong” results faces bullying, censorship or worse. That leaves parents and medical professionals in a deeply unhappy situation; having to make life-changing decisions with scarcely any data. But as one blogger put it when Lupron, one of the drugs now used to treat trans children, was proposed as a cure for autism: “If you’re going to give a potent drug like Lupron to children, a drug that can almost completely shut down the synthesis of both male and female steroid hormones, you’d better have damned good evidence that it’s likely to help to make it worth the risk.” The blogger? Dr David Gorski on a site called Science Based Medicine. That, at least, is something Gorski and I can agree on.
can terfs be normal for once in their lives like it is not hard to calm down. relax. trans a gender. respect pronouns. don’t get women killed. it is very easy you can trust me on this i have been doing it for as long as i’ve been alive
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult. Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.
The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
Update:because Sander Dekker, our (still under resignation, by the way) minister for Law Protection is a useless ass, this bill is still underway without any precautions taken to protect the safety and dignity of women and girls.
All concerns about the potential for abuse have been hand waved away with “We Don’t Think That Will Happen”. Despite the fact that those exact things are already happening abroad. Cases from the UK, Canada and the USA are conveniently ignored. Instead, Dekker defers to an investigation into self-ID in Argentina, Norway, Ireland and Malta, which concluded that Nothing Ever Happened. If anyone does have examples about trans abuse in those countries, I would love to hear them. I am aware of the number of female rapists in Norway increasing with 300% between 2015 and 2017, with self-ID being introduced in 2016, and of Barbie Kardashian in Ireland. Is there anything else known?
Apparently there was another vote on whether to mark this bill as “controversial” and postpone it, because the Netherlands still do not have a new government after elections early this year. But of course legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism in women’s changing rooms and making all sex-based statistics unreliable and meaningless is still not deemed controversial, so on we go. The bill is now scheduled to be discussed in the House of Representatives on the 24th of January.
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult. Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.
The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
I had no idea this was even going on because all the political news is about Corona virus. I am lost for words honestly. I am a law student but we were always taught that ‘’geslacht’’ legally speaking referred to sex. It’s in article 1 of the Constitution. So we’re supposed to believe this refers to ‘’gender identity’’ even though other grounds of discrimination (sexual orientation, disability) are not even mentioned explicitly but are covered implicitly? I have heard of Voorzij and I am following them on Twitter but Jesus Christ I had no idea the situation was this urgent
Just like everywhere else, all this legislation is ushered through pretty quietly. Late last year they also came with a proposal to add sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics (as in intersex) as protected characteristics against hate speech and group defamation, while gender/sex remains excluded. So by that logic an offensive statement about TIMs will become punishable hate speech while that same statement about women will not.
You can see here (Arikel 1, punt 2) that gender identity and expression are listed as being encompassed by the category gender. I believe they were added in 2018. By the way, hetero- and homosexual orientation have recently been added too.
I know the College voor de Rechten van de Mens does not offer any binding decisions but their decisions are held in high regard by other institutions, including government institutions, so this quite worrying. A human rights court can consider the ‘’rights’’ of men but not the rights of women
I don’t even know what ‘’gender expression’’ is supposed to be mean. Firing a man because he’s feminine would already be illegal considering it counts as sexism. So you’re allowed to fire him, but only if he ‘’identifies’’ as male?
I had no idea the woke gender ideology had set foot here as well, I’d always assumed it wasn’t as bad as in Canada or something. The again, I think the government recently apologised to the transgender community because back in the day they’d require some form of surgery to be able to change your legal gender, which transgenders perceive as ‘’forced sterilisation’’ (lmao as if)
Exactly, and with the explicit inclusion of gender identity and expression as aspects of “geslacht” in the Constitution, the odds don’t seem too great of a real court ruling in women’s favor to exclude men. A woman contacted the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science about the ruling on the women’s toilets in school and asked whether female students still had a right to single-sex facilities in schools. The answer was no, because excluding “trans women” from women’s facilities is now discrimination. The representative even went so far as to say that maybe it would “take some getting used to to encountering women with “manly” characteristics” in these spaces. And dragged up claims about trans people’s increased risk of suffering violence as justification. Again: safety was not a concern for this trans student, as he was offered the use of a single stall, but that was not good enough for him. It were the female students who felt uncomfortable and unsafe, but they will just have to suck it up and get used to it.
They’re hardly defining those terms. The proposed hate speech has the same issue with the terms not being properly defined. Plus in that one they want to use “seksuele gerichtheid” as protected characteristic instead of heterosexual and homosexual orientation. They claim that that Dutch term is a more accurate translation of the more commonly used “sexual orientation” in other languages, but somehow this Dutch phrasing seems much more open to include all manners of fetishes and kinks. They’re aware of some of the danger in that, because they did add the restriction that the sexual orientation in question should not be illegal, so they don’t inadvertently end up making pedophilia and bestiality protected. But no definition beyond that, probably so they won’t exclude any of the ever-growing number of sexual orientations. I also wonder whether gender expression can be used to say that a man wearing makeup or something has a “womanly” gender expression and should have access to women’s facilities on those grounds. I surely hope that kind of reasoning is still a bridge too far.
We might not be quite up to Canada’s level yet but we’re sure following its shiny example. Plans to ban conversion therapy, under which they include therapy for trans people to help them come to terms with their biological sex, are in the works as well, so it looks like it won’t be long until we have the full set. Almost every political party supports all of this. Only the SGP takes a firm stance against it, and occasionally ChristenUnie and Forum voor Democratie raise more critical questions too. Obviously those first two parties repel non-religious/non-christian voters and the latter repels for… different reasons. :’) Everything more on the Left and everything more progressive is on board and refuses to even engage in conversation about this.
Yup, you got that right. Not only did the government apologize for this “forced sterilisation”, I believe they also suggested people who underwent these surgeries might receive financial compensation. It’s wild. Being able to legally change your gender used to be a sort of accommodation for people who underwent these surgeries. Now things have gotten switched around and changing legal gender has become a goal in itself, and the surgeries a “mandatory” barrier to that goal.
Update on the decision on June 9th: they’ve declared the issue “not controversial”, so they will go ahead and discuss the matter soon, regardless of progress (or lack thereof) in government formation.
@girlsfrommars Looks like you have till 8th of July to send input.
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult. Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.
The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
Two weeks ago a lesbian was removed from a Zoom conference hosted by the Dutch branch of Amnesty International when she asked about respecting lesbians’ rights to exclude TIMs from their dating pool. Someone in the chat also told her she ought to reconsider why she didn’t think transwomen were women (and reconsider her sexuality because of it).
This was how Dutch Amnesty advertised their event for International Women’s Day last year (2020):
The attacks on women’s and gay rights are not just happening in the UK, Canada and the US. The impact is far greater than a select few “first world” countries.
GAY PEOPLE ARE SICK OF YOUR CONVERSION HET BULLSHIT
Outfits n make up n flannels don’t make you gay-
being homosexual does you fucking twits
Next time some fucker on my dating app tells me “I”M a TRANSbiAN”
Well firstly; you look like Bigfoot fucked a green bean and gave birth in a Jeffree Star Palette like…
e x c u s e who the fuck do you think your large-ass man-ass is tricking?
talkin bout some damn History-Channel level cryptids thinking they can slather on blue eyeshadow and demand to be accepted.
#bye
You *really* want “womanhood”? Get used to never being enough and always being critqued, which we have already seen you’ve failed time and time again . For fucks sake, JK Rowling simply said “sex exists” and your limp-dicked testoster-don’t-al ree’s still echo throughout cyber space.
A man is a man is a man is a man, and y’alls shit y chromie attitudes clock yourself before we even get a look at your franken creep selves.
No one paid attention to women’s fight against gender stereotypes until men decided they wanted to perform their fetishes full time.
Only when *men* decided they wanted to “be” a woman, did the definition suddenly become offensive.
So gyns, I would like to make an instagram to translate tumblr radblr posts so to introduce normie women to (radical) feminist ideas…
Since I can be very slow anyway, I will ask permission to print and put your link in the post descriptions, alright? If you prefer I don’t post with your url, I will erase your url in the print and the text on the description will be my Portuguese translation, so don’t worry about normal people going to search for your exact words.
(I mean there are obsessed tras out there but I really think we should try to reach women through all channels possible and I think radblr text posts is a tremendous useful introductionto feminist ideas.)
Ok, I want to propose a question: (and this isn’t to take away anyone’s responsibility for one’s actions but)
Isn’t there ultimately something wrong with one’s brain when a person does something horrible? Like abusing/killing/torturing women, children, animals, etc? I’m saying it in the sense that, for example and as far as I know, don’t psychopaths have a part of their brains damaged to the point they cannot feel empathy?
Once again, that’s not to imply psychopaths don’t know what they may do wrong is wrong, or inhuman, but that yes, being so “evil” to the point of making others suffer for pleasure or something, is something that damages one’s brain or was done in conjunction with a damaged brain which cannot process certain emotions that make it possible for us to live together without we all kill each other.
Women are called “fake” for seeking to comport more perfectly with patriarchy’s “femininity” through body modifications–they are going about it the “lazy way.” We should starve and punish our bodies into perfection–and only THEN will “beauty” be real. Yet when a man has breast-like shapes medically installed, he’s supposed to be becoming an “authentic” woman? The concept of created “authenticity” may be central to the tenets of genderism, but for women–we’ve studied a different gospel. Women of all social classes are generally maligned for having cosmetic surgery of any kind. We women know this–we see how even a rich and famous female celebrity is derided for going under the knife. Her before/after pictures line the check-out queue for weeks at the market. Her “failures” are everywhere, splayed. Women are subject to constant scrutiny, judgments, evaluations…they rate us on a scale of 1-10. They say, “Her face is a 3 but her ass is a 9!” and so we are mentally dismembered again and again. And all too often we come to agree and we dismember ourselves. We say: “I hate my boobs” or “I hate my stomach” forgetting that we are complete, that our bodies ARE ourselves and our selves are complete, whole bodies. We are whole human beings–and separating each other into pieces to hate is how we’ve collectively bought into yet another of patriarchy’s sick, violently misogynistic jokes.
Often a naturally large-breasted woman deals with random people asking her if she’s got implants…hissing behind her back that she’s pretentious and false if she denies…it isn’t very nice at all. This is genderism imposing meaningless standards of “femininity” onto women. This unfortunate man has run up against the reality of how society on the whole views elective medicalized body modifications. His intimate partners still see him as a man because he IS a man. He’s a man with a wound that will hurt and bleed forever, a man whose orgasms don’t feel good, who will always be dependent on poisonous injections, with a lifelong burden of pain to bear–very possibly alone. This is his human terror. This is also women’s human terror–terror of our bodies, of being hated, of being hurt–of rejection because others may find us disgusting. Ironically–this man has, in his failure to be a woman, come to emotionally understand a great deal about what patriarchy does to women. It takes us apart to “improve” us and if the results aren’t pretty enough–it’s our fault for being. Just being. Genderism is not real and it is NOT good, and when you apply its sick precepts to actual human beings–suffering is ALWAYS the result. I feel sorry for him, and I wish people would just wake up.
every time someone says “andrea dworkin was right about everything” i cringe inside. consider:
dworkin’s arguments against the reality of sex
dworkin’s homophobia (for as much as y’all talk about “woke homophobia” from TRAs, did you know dworkin shared these same beliefs?)
dworkin, pro bestiality
dworkin, pro incest
dworkin, pro pedophilia
so every time i hear “dworkin was right about everything” i know one of two things immediately. one, you haven’t actually read much dworkin. which is okay! two, you’re pro incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and homophobia. but i usually give people the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the first.
** and a disclaimer before i get angry reblogs… where in this post have i criticized dworkin’s writing on pornography and prostitution? thank you.
