dakotadawn

[dakotadawn]

I just found your blog! We share the same politics and I was searching through the TIRFy side of tumblr and found it. Idk I just feel like you seem to get a fair bit of negativity on this blog (based on some of the other asks and stuff I saw here) so I just wanted to compliment you for approaching these issues in a way that's really thoughtful towards cis women + trans people

im sry i havent been logged into this blog for ages but thank u!!

[dakotadawn]

Right? Its a ridiculous take. I'm trans, and only attracted to other biological males. Apparently, I'm not an acceptable trans person for being homosexual!

Your understanding of “homosexuality” has only existed for a few decades at most. For thousands of years before, orientation was not defined the way you say it is. It never has been at large, even! You are the revisionist here, not these so called “”genderists”” — a nonsensical and nonexistent boogeyman created by TERFs to have an Other to radicalise against

Well I'm sure I'm just a dirty "TERF" to you, me being a tranny aside.

You want to erase homosexuality and make it all about gender identity. Stop. I have the right to be only attracted to males, and not to any female with an identity.

[dakotadawn]

hi! i noticed in one of your posts you say that you think transwomen do not overall benefit from patriarchy and are oppressed by men — while i do agree with the second half, in that trans peoples’ legal/medical safety is infringed upon and gnc people overall are discriminated against under patriarchy, i’m having a hard time understanding why you think transwomen might not be benefiting from patriarchy overall? transwomen are not affected by abortion/reproductive rights, do not experience the same violence or pressure to wear modesty garments as women and girls in certain countries, and are not trafficked or married off at young ages in nearly comparable amounts. what part of the patriarchy are you thinking of that a transwoman might not benefit from? because again, i don’t think that discrimination due to gender non conformity necessarily cancels out all of the other benefits, unless something obvious has slipper my mind. thanks!

Valid points. I more meant about how MRAs will attempt to use the discrimination against feminine males as proof of "male oppression" existing and that I do not share any class interest with the average man.

#dakota answers!

[dakotadawn]

hmu on discord it's important asf homegirl

#aVa1388

i did

[dakotadawn]

I really like your posts! Your position on things is very lucid and reasonable. I hope you're doing well.

thank you!

[dakotadawn]

Why are you gay

Big homo tranny

[dakotadawn]

just wanna say that I, a radical feminist, absolutely adore ur blog and im vv happy that you are speaking out w takes that aren't "conventional" or "typical" on both the trans activist and radfem side. we need more ppl like you!

Thank you for the nice words!

[dakotadawn]

I think you should stop calling us all "transfems", I'm not a "transfem". I prefer "transwoman" or "transsexual".

When you definitely know what you're talking about

#trans discourse

[dakotadawn]

"Why are the snakes biting me :(" - person who walked into a den of venomous snakes

What?

[dakotadawn]

My new pet peeve is people completely misunderstanding the term Male Gaze and making the term female gaze based entirely on that misunderstanding

[dakotadawn]

youre so based <3

Thank u <3

[dakotadawn]

[dakotadawn]

Looooooool

Lesbians I'm sorry. I deeply wish transwomen weren't like this.

I’m sorry, but this is so fucking funny and explains the entire sub

#trans #trans discourse #lesbian

[dakotadawn]

to achieve true equality women must do 48% more of the violent crime

[dakotadawn]

wish all these males a fine evening with a shotgun at the roof of their mouth xx

PLEASE REPORT

these women don't know they were being recorded/photographed.

#reblog for awareness #please report #creeps

[dakotadawn]

for my girlies who need motivation to go to school, here u go <3

[dakotadawn]

The Origin of Misogyny: It is not Men’s Socialization or Men’s Nature, but Men’s Ability

The idea that misogyny comes from socialization is circular logic. Misogyny comes from misogynistic laws and religions? Who made the laws? Who made the religions? How is it possible that women were  socialized to be subservient to men in so many cultures, even ones that had no previous contact with each other?

However, the idea that misogyny comes from men’s nature is also flawed. Yes, men’s hatred of women is extremely common, as previously established, yet it is not completely universal. There have been matriarchal societies. And in our day-to-day interactions with men, we do notice differences between men based on how they were raised and their respective day-to-day environments.

So what is the root of misogyny, if it’s not men’s socialization or men’s nature? 

I think a more useful way of understanding misogyny (and honestly all forms of oppression) is not to focus on socialization or nature but on ability.

Men have a unique ability to harm women in a way that women cannot harm men. Men can impregnate women. Women cannot impregnate men. On top of having this unique ability, men also have major incentives for doing it: by impregnating a woman, they receive pleasure and a lineage. Unlike women, they also run such a small biological risk for producing a child. After having their orgasm, nothing else is biologically required from them. At worst, they might get an STD.

You might argue that some men are gay or do not want children. That’s all very much true. However, I am not arguing that men have a natural impulse to use their ability. I am simply stating that they have the ability. It is also important to understand that men exist as a class, as well as individuals. While individual men might not even have the ability to impregnate (due to infertility), we can hopefully understand that men as a class have this ability.

If it helps, we can think of this unique ability like a gun. Half of the population is born with a gun (ability to impregnate)  and a bullet-proof vest (inability to be impregnated); the other half is born with neither. The ones born with the gun and the bullet-proof vest  are not necessarily born with a natural impulse to fire the gun–but they are nonetheless born with one.

Even if a man never hurts someone with the gun, I want you to imagine how his psyche is formed just by virtue of having it. Imagine walking into a room with a gun and a bullet-proof vest, and no one else in the room has either. Even if you would never use the gun…just having one gives you a sense of protection, and perhaps a sense of superiority and power. Even if you would never use your tacit threat, you nonetheless have a tacit threat. And now imagine the psyche of those without the gun or the vest. They are vulnerable, and know that they are vulnerable, to the ones who do have one. And so their options are to either appease those with guns and vests, always tip-toeing around them–or to band together.

The ability argument answers the questions that the socialization argument fails to address; namely, it answers the question “where do sexist laws and religions come from?”  It comes from men’s unique ability to harm women in a way that women cannot harm men. This is not to say that men have a natural impulse to harm women–just that they can. 

#radfem