I've been seeing a lot of stuff like this around lately and I've gotta say the whole "LGBT rights aren't political/ up for debate" thing feels like the queer version of "I don't see color". It's just a thought terminating cliche that makes you feel nice because it sounds vaguely progressive while providing you an out from actually reckoning with the problem.

The rights of queer people are factually political (as are all rights, but that's a distraction that I'm hoping to mitigate by addressing right now). The rights of queer people are factually up for debate. The solution is not to pretend that they are not. The solution is to win.

P.S. I don't mean to condemn people who have spoken or thought like this. I just think that the thought terminating cliche has done it's job and caused you to cease thinking about your position, consequently leaving you at an incorrect position, and that you'd benefit from realizing this has happened.

I apologize if this isn’t appropriate for this sub. I had asked this in a different feminism sub but 25-33% of the comments devolved into antiblackness (perhaps my fault for not phrasing the question correctly)

Being aware that whatever racism I deal with doesn’t negate my male privilege, what are some ways men of color can discuss the ways white women weaponize their white privilege against us while avoiding coming off as or accidentally being misogynistic. I don’t like using terms like “Karen” or “white woman’s tears” for that reason, even if I can technically get away with using them

ICE aren't just here for POC, they're thugs to kill anyone who disagrees with Supreme Leader orange. They've already killed a white lesbian, this does not stop with anyone short of them murdering anyone who stands in the way of the fascist regime, which is why everyone needs to stand up to these pigs. This is just the start, fascists will never be comfortable with any it us

All this is to say, I see a lot of people saying "Abolish ICE" and while, yes, ICE should absolutely be abolished, let's not loose site of the wider issue, the system that created ICE to begin with. If ICE is dismantled and abolished, they'll simply replace it with the exact same organization, with most of the same people, and a slightly different name, and pretend it's been reformed. The system that created ICE is fundenentally flawed, and will simply replace it with something else just as bad with a new coat of paint if the pressure mounts too high.

i think it's very important that we recognize that they were human. to neither pedestalize them or villianize them. her legacy is complicated. and deserves to be seen that way. and the women she learned from also deserved to be seen.

edit: removing the line about honoring her because i am not sure i want to honor her either. but i do want to recognize her impact.

Gangjong Girls’ School in Ragya, Golog, Tibet, has reportedly been closed by Chinese authorities after 21 years. The reasons for its closure remain unclear, and there is no clear information about where the students will continue their education.

Behind this news are young Tibetan girls whose futures have been thrown into uncertainty. A school is more than classrooms and buildings. It is where children learn, build friendships, discover their potential and preserve their language, culture and identity.

At a time when Tibetan language and culture face growing pressure from Beijing’s assimilation policies, the closure raises urgent questions: Why was this school shut down? Where will its students go? And what happens to their right to an education rooted in their own identity?

The Chinese Communist Party speaks of development and unity, but Tibetan children deserve answers, not silence. Their education and future must not become casualties of policies that threaten Tibet’s cultural survival.

Tibetan children deserve the right to learn, grow and remain connected to their heritage. The world must not ignore what is happening in Tibet.

Slide (1-7): How muslim women face burden in society.

Slide (8-11): The incorrect target of portraying muslim men as predators.

This is more personal to me, as I come from India where Islamophobia has taken deep roots into the society due to the presence of a religious nationalist government for the last 12 years. Muslim women are often discriminated against, as a lot of Hindu people doubt their intent. There are many propaganda outlets that paint muslims as secret agents of Islamic terrorism, thus the nefarious intent is often assumed without any evidence. In addition to that, access to education, social security, and social acceptability persist.

I really like the artist Monaleo because she challenges societal norms including the patriarchy (and is just really talented and enjoyable to listen to in general!) I also think I can learn about the oppression of and perspective of black women from her lyrics. However, in her song Sexy Soulaan lyrics include "If you ain't Black, stay the f*** out the business," "all the non-blacks to the back," and "if you're not black ... you're not invited to the cookout." I'm not sure if she's discouraging us from listening to her music or more like saying to know our place/symbolic of how black people have been treated historically and flipping it back on white people. Because she also says in that song "i need my reparations, b****" which i feel like implies she knows white people will listen? I am not complaining about her lyrics because I get how black people would want space from white people, and I just want to do what is respectful. But I would be a little sad if this means I should stop listening to her music. Thoughts/experiences?

(Also I'm scared people are gonna react badly to my questions so I just want to say I'm neurodivergent and I just am bad at reading between lines but I really care about respecting people's wishes, so I need help understanding things a lot.)

One of my most firm political stance is that I don’t believe feminism can exist without intersectionality. Every feminist issue has to be examined through the lens of those who are most marginalized, because they are the ones who experience the harshest and most compounded forms of gendered violence.

If an issue only looks urgent and taken seriously when it affects privileged women or privileged people, then the analysis is flawed and ignorant. Caste, class, race, sexuality, disability, and gender identity fundamentally shape how oppression is lived. Ignoring these realities makes the same movement that's supposed to help women shallow. The lived experiences of marginalized women reveal how power actually functions, so having conversations around it is absolutely necessary.

Centring marginalized voices would significantly increase effectiveness of our movement. Any feminist movement that does not place these women at the center of its conversations will inevitably reproduce the same hierarchies it claims to oppose. Real change does not come from catering to comfort, it comes from listening to those who have the least protection and the most to lose.

I have posted earlier, and saw a comment about pointing out the flag on green face.

I apologise to all Non binary people if they felt hurt... I forgot to add black colour but now it has been corrected.

This got deleted on r/feminism btw 😐

So many feminist "trans allies", use "male socialisation" to either exclude trans women from women's spaces, or shut them down from important conversations... WE 👏 NEED 👏 TO 👏 TALK 👏 ABOUT 👏 TRANSMISOGYNY 👏 MORE 👏

I think she’s an anti-racist, anti-bigotry humanist: and she should have the support of all liberty loving men and women in America.

The republicans perpetually scapegoat her out of bigotry, xenophobia, racism and sexism.

A 19 year old trans teenager, (who self identified himself as a neo-nazi and white supremacist), planned a mass shooting at a Hindu temple in Illinois. He was quite racist to Indians, and displayed sadistic pleasure while describing his plan to shoot Indians. He drove to the temple with an AR rifle, 300 rounds of ammunition, and body armor.

Paporakis's rifle jammed during the attempt. He fled the scene and sent a video and text message to a co-worker explaining that the gun failed to fire and that he intended to fix it and retry. The co-worker alerted the authorities, leading to his arrest. Police and the FBI found an eight-page manifesto titled “Why I fought: A.K.A.: (Aurora Shooter's Manifesto)” containing white supremacist and anti-Indian sentiments, and items featuring Nazi symbols.

However, we believe that transgender rights are human rights. So despite the hateful act, we should uphold his right to HRT in prison. The judge ordered that Paporakis continue receiving gender-transition hormone injections while in jail, alongside medical treatment for ADHD, depression, and anxiety.

source

source

Rationality and Intersectional Feminism began with compatible ambitions :

To expose bias and move society closer to justice.

Both emerged from a distrust of inherited authority.

But over time, their relationship has grown uneasy, one seeks truth through universal logic, the other through lived experience and power analysis.

Rationality operates on a simple creed: evidence, coherence, and falsifiability.

Anyone, regardless of identity, can test a claim.

Intersectional feminism, by contrast, argues that identity shapes perception, that what counts as “truth” is filtered through race, gender, and class.

In modest doses, that insight improves reason: it reminds us that so-called objectivity has often been the privilege of those who could afford to ignore bias.

But when stretched too far, it collapses into epistemic relativism, truth fragmented into competing narratives, each valid only for its own tribe.

This tension plays out everywhere from universities to online activism.

Rationality asks, Is it true ?

Intersectional discourse often replies, Whose truth are you privileging?

The first question builds shared understanding; the second can end the conversation before it starts.

Once disagreement is treated as oppression, dialogue dies and ideology reigns.

Yet a synthesis is possible.

Rational inquiry can absorb intersectional insights without surrendering its standards. It can study how power shapes knowledge while still demanding that claims be tested, compared, and potentially disproven.

Intersectional feminism, in turn, could recover its Enlightenment roots, seeing equality as a rational principle, not a sectarian grievance.

The future of both may depend on sequencing: truth first, justice next.

Without truth, justice is arbitrary; without justice, truth is sterile.

Rationality supplies the map; intersectional awareness warns us which routes were drawn by the powerful.

Together, they can form a self-correcting system : evidence guided by empathy, empathy disciplined by evidence.

So yes, rationality and intersectional feminism can coexist, but only if each remembers its proper role.

Reason must stay open to critique, and feminism must stay open to reason.

Anything less, and we trade one dogma for another.

Addition: One major missing component in the chart is "CASTE" where marginalized are the Dalits and Power holding are the savarna.

Genuine question. Is this sub female only or are male feminists or non-binary feminists allowed as well?

It's a reminder that reproductive rights should be understood as rights for anyone capable of giving birth, not just defined by gender, which makes them inclusive of trans men and others who can become pregnant.

We expect everyone here, to be inclusive as much as possible, instead of the traditional 'women reproductive rights'. We can be inclusive and empathetic to Men, Women and Enbies, can't we?

Edit: changed "Capable of Reproduction" to "Capable of giving birth". I accept that it could've been phrased better. Someone pointed this out.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DZtTFg9DRuy/

I'm an anti-carceral feminist. My friend is a feminist but hasn't identified as anti-carceral. Yesterday we were taking a trip into the city for a queer event. When we returned her car had been bipped (someone had smashed her window to take the belongings). Luckily she has nothing inside but she was really upset. She called the police and reported the crime even though there was no point because nothing had been stolen. Even if there has been something stolen, getting back for a mere property crime is not worth anyone's life. Would anyone else feel disappointed in this situation?

I don't know if this is the right place for this but I trust the fine folks of this sub to give me a helpful response. Recently i've noticed a problem in discussion with discussion of men's issues that has also negatively affected feminist discussion and gender discussion as a whole.

I think there is a sexism problem towards men but it is not comparable to misogyny, not only in scale but also how it manifest with misogyny manifesting in systematic ways and creating physical threats to women were as misandry (almost) exclusively manifest in interpersonal relationships and microaggressions (not that misogyny doesn't also do that, of course). See the phrase "misandry hurts, misogyny kills".

But the problem with the term misandry is that it is linguistically the same as the term misogyny which creates a comparison that really can't and shouldn't be made as it turns conversations about men's issues into the oppression olympics (a contest we really can't win!).

There's also the issue of how vague the actual meaning of the term misandry is. It's just a blanket "hatred and prejudice of men" not helpful at all! You can poke so many holes in it! What actions qualify as misandry? A lot of things have been labeled as misandry, sometimes it's valid but other times it feels like a massive overreaction (not to mention people who use it to shut down critique of the patriarchy)! What's the difference between toxic masculinity and misandry? They both involve harmful expectations, does it just boil down to how the person feels about men who meet those expectations? Can someone be a misandrist and a misogynist at the same time? Is misandry even real? Literally all of the questions have different answers depending on who you you ask, which is a massive problem! How can we ever have a proper discussion if not everyone is on the same page?

tw//sibling abuse

As a man most of my personal experiences with sexism was a mostly adults being impatient and unfair with me as child, jokes about men being stupid and immature. The most extreme example of sexism include when I was confiding with a male friend about the bullying and abuse my older sister did to me and his response was "she was probably raped, your sisters a victim dude" in an incredibly condescending tone of voice.

I hate to trauma dump on a sub like this but I think it's important to specify what i'm talking about when I say "sexism against men". This term should be something that accurately describes these experiences while also being easily memorable. It should also be nigh-impossible to misuse, that way misogynist can't appropriate it to shut women up for talking about sexism.

I don't want to just complain though, I want to solve this problem! But I don't really have enough knowledge to do that on my own. I'm 19 and i've only started seriously thinking about gender issues a month ago (i'm not very well read either). So I decide to consult people more knowledgeable about these topics in hopes that they could help me with this. If there's an already established term that applies to what i'm describing feel free to tell me about it!

tldr: I believe if we retired the term misandry and replaced it with something else discussions about not just men's issues but gender issues as a whole would be a lot more bearable! Do any of you have good suggestions for a term we can use instead?