I didn't want to become someone who files reports. I wanted to write essays, make arguments, let the ideas do the work. But I've spent the last stretch of my life watching what happens when a woman makes a materialist, sex-based argument in a space that brands itself "uncensored" and "intersectional" and I've learned that the argument alone doesn't reach the people making the decisions. The removal notice does. The pattern does. The paper trail does.

So I started documenting. And now I'm reporting. Here's why.

This isn't about one bad moderator having a bad day. When I posted an essay defending the legitimacy of grounding personal womanhood in biological sex while explicitly, repeatedly, being inclusive of other forms of identity, it was removed twice, by two different and insulting rationales that contradicted each other. The first said my terminology was a slur. The second said the terminology didn't matter; the underlying claim itself was the violation. In between, my own words were rewritten back to me: a line where I explicitly said "my identity does not exclude yours" became evidence, somehow, that I was excluding people. A line where I named my own relationship to my own infertile body while explicitly including those without became, in a moderator's words, "essentialism wearing trauma."

That phrase is doing something specific. It's not a rebuttal. It's a reclassification taking a woman's disclosure about her own body and recasting it as a performance, a costume, a manipulation, and something to be excluded. It's the exact move my essay was naming: identity policing dressed as anti-oppression enforcement.

And it isn't new, and it isn't isolated. In 2020, Reddit's moderators replaced the moderation team of r/ PCOS a support community for a condition that only affects people with ovaries reportedly at the request of trans-activist mods, made the community private, and eventually banned it outright. When the original moderators tried to rebuild it, that got banned too. Reddit's own admins denied involvement, despite the replacement mod team's own pinned post crediting admin help. Women trying to talk about their own bodies, in a space built for exactly that, lost the space.

That's the category this belongs to. Not a rude comment. Not a disagreement about tone. A recurring institutional mechanism where sex-based female speech gets relabeled as hate, and the relabeling itself becomes the justification for removing it. Sex-based oppression.

Why reporting, and not just writing

Essays get read by the people who already agree, mostly. Removal notices get written by people with actual power over whether the argument gets to exist in a given room at all, or whether they even read it. If those people are misapplying a platform's own hate-speech and discrimination policies to punish sex-based speech specifically, inventing exclusion that isn't in the text, then removing the text for the exclusion they invented, that's not just bad moderation. On platforms with formal, sitewide protections against discrimination based on sex, it's arguably a policy violation the platform is obligated to actually look at, whether or not any individual moderator wants it looked at.

I'm not asking anyone to report people for disagreeing with them. I'm asking: if you have quotes in hand, the actual words you wrote, sitting next to the actual words used to punish you for writing them, and those two things don't match, send it up the chain. If you have faced sex-based oppression report it. Not because it feels good. Because it's the one channel that isn't optional for the platform to answer, the way an argument in a comments section is optional to engage with.

I'm not saying every removal is discrimination. I'm not saying every moderator acting badly is doing so because you're a woman. I'm saying: when the pattern repeats, sex-based speech relabeled as exclusionary without evidence of exclusion, personal disclosure relabeled as manipulation, and inclusive language quoted directly and still ignored, that repetition is itself the evidence. One incident is an incident. A shape that recurs across different subs, different moderators, and different years is a pattern. Name it as one.

If this has happened to you, if your own inclusive words got turned into an accusation, if a real disclosure about your own body got called a performance, save the notice. Save your original text next to it. And report it. Not because a report guarantees anything gets fixed. Because the paper trail is the only thing that outlasts the argument.

And I am tired of this sexism being institutionally sanctioned.

FEMs and SAMs sit at the volatile intersection of modern gender theory, materialist feminism, and online sociopolitical commentary. These terms describe extremist sex-abolitionist or identity-first frameworks that reinscribe misogyny under the banner of "progressivism."

FEMs (Female-Exclusionary Misogynists) describe perspectives that, in an effort to detach gender identity from biology entirely, minimize or invalidate female biological reality from the definition of womanhood, effectively erasing sex-based social analysis.

SAMs (Sex-Abolitionist Misogynists) refers to positions advocating for the total dissolution of sex categories in favor of gender-only identity, which ignores how patriarchy specifically targets and exploits biological female capacity (reproductive labor, femicide, female infanticide, etc.) and the lived womanhood of many women.

The challenge of dismantling rigid gender norms without erasing the material, sex-based realities that drive systemic oppression is live and real. And I have seen it fall into the latter category more and more.

We scream "intersectionality" and rightly include all forms of womanhood, gender identities included. But what happens in turn? The single most historically oppressed demographic is now denied even validity. Female identity is labeled invalid, vapid, shallow, and dangerous to others. That without capitulation to one's identity being centered on gender, on the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of women, your identity in womanhood is somehow more shallow and more patriarchal.

Let's break that down real fast. There is a belief that if a female does not ascribe to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions of "womanhood," she is supporting patriarchy. I'm sorry, but have we all lost our god damn minds? That is so patriarchal and SO MISOGYNISTIC AND SEXIST that it boggles the mind. And somehow it gets inverted into progressivism.

I never believed in "so far left you go right" until now.

Radical gender constructivism demands adherence to gendered performance for social validation, reinventing the very patriarchal logic feminism originally aimed to dismantle. It is the reemergence of gender essentialism. When "womanhood" is detached entirely from material reality and anchored solely in socially constructed roles, expressions, or internal feelings, it makes patriarchal gender stereotypes the baseline for legitimacy. The irony is stark: in trying to dismantle biological reductionism, hyper-constructivist frameworks often substitute it with performance reductionism. Under this framework, a female who rejects traditional feminine socialization or expression is framed not as a valid woman, but as a fundamentally flawed and empty one.

Materialist feminism focuses on how systems of power exploit physical realities, reproductive labor, maternal mortality, sex-selective abortion, sex-based violence, etc. Completely removing "female" as a distinct material category creates a severe structural blind spot. You cannot analyze or critique a system built on controlling females (patriarchy) if naming that biological reality is treated as inherently exclusionary or politically suspect.

Expanding inclusion for gender identity does not have to come at the cost of erasing the material, sex-based analysis required to dismantle misogyny.

The phrase "you are not your uterus" demonstrates a complete inversion: what began as a feminist defense against patriarchal objectification mutated into a tool for alienating women from their own material reality, identity, and choice. When that statement is turned against a woman who consciously chooses to ground her womanhood in her biological sex, the core feminist promise of self-determination gets inverted. What was designed as a shield against reproductive coercion becomes a weapon of ideological compliance to normative gender roles.

Feminism was built to expand a woman's choices, not narrow them. If liberation meant escaping the mandate that a female must be defined by her reproductive organs, it also meant protecting her right to decide how she relates to her own body. Telling a woman that her conscious, educated choice to center her female biological reality is "shallow" or "patriarchal" replaces old patriarchal rules with a new set of demands.

This dynamic creates a rigid ideological boundary. To be politically validated, a female is expected to treat her biological sex as irrelevant, unmentionable, or secondary. If she instead finds solidarity, meaning, or political relevance in her female body, her agency is dismissed as "internalized misogyny." It asserts that third parties know better than the woman herself what her relationship to her own body should be, a classic hallmark of patriarchal control disguised as enlightened discourse.

True bodily autonomy includes the right to embrace one's physical reality without needing permission or approval. When progressivism demands that women disavow their biological sex to qualify as liberated, it stops offering freedom from rigid norms and starts enforcing a new standard of female self-effacement.

Swapping forced subordination for forced disembodiment is not liberation. It simply changes who gets to tell women how they are allowed to feel about their own bodies.

FEMs and SAMs are an exclusionary danger to feminism.

To the FEMs and SAMs: as an infertile woman, I am my womb and my womb is me, and my identity does not exclude yours. Don't exclude mine.

FEMs and SAMs sit at the volatile intersection of modern gender theory, materialist feminism, and online sociopolitical commentary. These terms describe extremist sex-abolitionist or identity-first frameworks that reinscribe misogyny under the banner of "progressivism."

FEMs (Female-Exclusionary Misogynists) describe perspectives that, in an effort to detach gender identity from biology entirely, minimize or invalidate female biological reality from the definition of womanhood, effectively erasing sex-based social analysis.

SAMs (Sex-Abolitionist Misogynists) refers to positions advocating for the total dissolution of sex categories in favor of gender-only identity, which ignores how patriarchy specifically targets and exploits biological female capacity (reproductive labor, femicide, female infanticide, etc.) and the lived womanhood of many women.

The challenge of dismantling rigid gender norms without erasing the material, sex-based realities that drive systemic oppression is live and real. And I have seen it fall into the latter category more and more.

We scream "intersectionality" and rightly include all forms of womanhood, gender identities included. But what happens in turn? The single most historically oppressed demographic is now denied even validity. Female identity is labeled invalid, vapid, shallow, and dangerous to others. That without capitulation to one's identity being centered on gender, on the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of women, your identity in womanhood is somehow more shallow and more patriarchal.

Let's break that down real fast. There is a belief that if a female does not ascribe to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions of "womanhood," she is supporting patriarchy. I'm sorry, but have we all lost our god damn minds? That is so patriarchal and SO MISOGYNISTIC AND SEXIST that it boggles the mind. And somehow it gets inverted into progressivism.

I never believed in "so far left you go right" until now.

Radical gender constructivism demands adherence to gendered performance for social validation, reinventing the very patriarchal logic feminism originally aimed to dismantle. It is the reemergence of gender essentialism. When "womanhood" is detached entirely from material reality and anchored solely in socially constructed roles, expressions, or internal feelings, it makes patriarchal gender stereotypes the baseline for legitimacy. The irony is stark: in trying to dismantle biological reductionism, hyper-constructivist frameworks often substitute it with performance reductionism. Under this framework, a female who rejects traditional feminine socialization or expression is framed not as a valid woman, but as a fundamentally flawed and empty one.

Materialist feminism focuses on how systems of power exploit physical realities, reproductive labor, maternal mortality, sex-selective abortion, sex-based violence, etc. Completely removing "female" as a distinct material category creates a severe structural blind spot. You cannot analyze or critique a system built on controlling females (patriarchy) if naming that biological reality is treated as inherently exclusionary or politically suspect.

Expanding inclusion for gender identity does not have to come at the cost of erasing the material, sex-based analysis required to dismantle misogyny.

The phrase "you are not your uterus" demonstrates a complete inversion: what began as a feminist defense against patriarchal objectification mutated into a tool for alienating women from their own material reality, identity, and choice. When that statement is turned against a woman who consciously chooses to ground her womanhood in her biological sex, the core feminist promise of self-determination gets inverted. What was designed as a shield against reproductive coercion becomes a weapon of ideological compliance to normative gender roles.

Feminism was built to expand a woman's choices, not narrow them. If liberation meant escaping the mandate that a female must be defined by her reproductive organs, it also meant protecting her right to decide how she relates to her own body. Telling a woman that her conscious, educated choice to center her female biological reality is "shallow" or "patriarchal" replaces old patriarchal rules with a new set of demands.

This dynamic creates a rigid ideological boundary. To be politically validated, a female is expected to treat her biological sex as irrelevant, unmentionable, or secondary. If she instead finds solidarity, meaning, or political relevance in her female body, her agency is dismissed as "internalized misogyny." It asserts that third parties know better than the woman herself what her relationship to her own body should be, a classic hallmark of patriarchal control disguised as enlightened discourse.

True bodily autonomy includes the right to embrace one's physical reality without needing permission or approval. When progressivism demands that women disavow their biological sex to qualify as liberated, it stops offering freedom from rigid norms and starts enforcing a new standard of female self-effacement.

Swapping forced subordination for forced disembodiment is not liberation. It simply changes who gets to tell women how they are allowed to feel about their own bodies.

FEMs and SAMs are an exclusionary danger to feminism.

To the FEMs and SAMs: as an infertile woman, I am my womb and my womb is me, and my identity does not exclude yours. Don't exclude mine.

FEMs and SAMs sit at the volatile intersection of modern gender theory, materialist feminism, and online sociopolitical commentary. These terms describe extremist sex-abolitionist or identity-first frameworks that reinscribe misogyny under the banner of "progressivism."

FEMs (Female-Exclusionary Misogynists) describe perspectives that, in an effort to detach gender identity from biology entirely, minimize or invalidate female biological reality from the definition of womanhood, effectively erasing sex-based social analysis.

SAMs (Sex-Abolitionist Misogynists) refers to positions advocating for the total dissolution of sex categories in favor of gender-only identity, which ignores how patriarchy specifically targets and exploits biological female capacity (reproductive labor, femicide, female infanticide, etc.) and the lived womanhood of many women.

The challenge of dismantling rigid gender norms without erasing the material, sex-based realities that drive systemic oppression is live and real. And I have seen it fall into the latter category more and more.

We scream "intersectionality" and rightly include all forms of womanhood, gender identities included. But what happens in turn? The single most historically oppressed demographic is now denied even validity. Female identity is labeled invalid, vapid, shallow, and dangerous to others. That without capitulation to one's identity being centered on gender, on the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of women, your identity in womanhood is somehow more shallow and more patriarchal.

Let's break that down real fast. There is a belief that if a female does not ascribe to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions of "womanhood," she is supporting patriarchy. I'm sorry, but have we all lost our god damn minds? That is so patriarchal and SO MISOGYNISTIC AND SEXIST that it boggles the mind. And somehow it gets inverted into progressivism.

I never believed in "so far left you go right" until now.

Radical gender constructivism demands adherence to gendered performance for social validation, reinventing the very patriarchal logic feminism originally aimed to dismantle. It is the reemergence of gender essentialism. When "womanhood" is detached entirely from material reality and anchored solely in socially constructed roles, expressions, or internal feelings, it makes patriarchal gender stereotypes the baseline for legitimacy. The irony is stark: in trying to dismantle biological reductionism, hyper-constructivist frameworks often substitute it with performance reductionism. Under this framework, a female who rejects traditional feminine socialization or expression is framed not as a valid woman, but as a fundamentally flawed and empty one.

Materialist feminism focuses on how systems of power exploit physical realities, reproductive labor, maternal mortality, sex-selective abortion, sex-based violence, etc. Completely removing "female" as a distinct material category creates a severe structural blind spot. You cannot analyze or critique a system built on controlling females (patriarchy) if naming that biological reality is treated as inherently exclusionary or politically suspect.

Expanding inclusion for gender identity does not have to come at the cost of erasing the material, sex-based analysis required to dismantle misogyny.

The phrase "you are not your uterus" demonstrates a complete inversion: what began as a feminist defense against patriarchal objectification mutated into a tool for alienating women from their own material reality, identity, and choice. When that statement is turned against a woman who consciously chooses to ground her womanhood in her biological sex, the core feminist promise of self-determination gets inverted. What was designed as a shield against reproductive coercion becomes a weapon of ideological compliance to normative gender roles.

Feminism was built to expand a woman's choices, not narrow them. If liberation meant escaping the mandate that a female must be defined by her reproductive organs, it also meant protecting her right to decide how she relates to her own body. Telling a woman that her conscious, educated choice to center her female biological reality is "shallow" or "patriarchal" replaces old patriarchal rules with a new set of demands.

This dynamic creates a rigid ideological boundary. To be politically validated, a female is expected to treat her biological sex as irrelevant, unmentionable, or secondary. If she instead finds solidarity, meaning, or political relevance in her female body, her agency is dismissed as "internalized misogyny." It asserts that third parties know better than the woman herself what her relationship to her own body should be, a classic hallmark of patriarchal control disguised as enlightened discourse.

True bodily autonomy includes the right to embrace one's physical reality without needing permission or approval. When progressivism demands that women disavow their biological sex to qualify as liberated, it stops offering freedom from rigid norms and starts enforcing a new standard of female self-effacement.

Swapping forced subordination for forced disembodiment is not liberation. It simply changes who gets to tell women how they are allowed to feel about their own bodies.

FEMs and SAMs are an exclusionary danger to feminism.

To the FEMs and SAMs: as an infertile woman, I am my womb and my womb is me, and my identity does not exclude yours. Don't exclude mine.

(A note to this sub. We have differences. I fully support trans rights and believe both gender and sex identities are valid within womanhood. We are not the same ideologically. But still, because of the state of the current extreme sexism towards females, this is one of the only places I can voice my knowledge. And so I will)

FEMs and SAMs sit at the volatile intersection of modern gender theory, materialist feminism, and online sociopolitical commentary. These terms describe extremist sex-abolitionist or identity-first frameworks that reinscribe misogyny under the banner of "progressivism."

FEMs (Female-Exclusionary Misogynists) describe perspectives that, in an effort to detach gender identity from biology entirely, minimize or invalidate female biological reality from the definition of womanhood, effectively erasing sex-based social analysis.

SAMs (Sex-Abolitionist Misogynists) refers to positions advocating for the total dissolution of sex categories in favor of gender-only identity, which ignores how patriarchy specifically targets and exploits biological female capacity (reproductive labor, femicide, female infanticide, etc.) and the lived womanhood of many women.

The challenge of dismantling rigid gender norms without erasing the material, sex-based realities that drive systemic oppression is live and real. And I have seen it fall into the latter category more and more.

We scream "intersectionality" and rightly include all forms of womanhood, gender identities included. But what happens in turn? The single most historically oppressed demographic is now denied even validity. Female identity is labeled invalid, vapid, shallow, and dangerous to others. That without capitulation to one's identity being centered on gender, on the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of women, your identity in womanhood is somehow more shallow and more patriarchal.

Let's break that down real fast. There is a belief that if a female does not ascribe to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions of "womanhood," she is supporting patriarchy. I'm sorry, but have we all lost our god damn minds? That is so patriarchal and SO MISOGYNISTIC AND SEXIST that it boggles the mind. And somehow it gets inverted into progressivism.

I never believed in "so far left you go right" until now.

Radical gender constructivism demands adherence to gendered performance for social validation, reinventing the very patriarchal logic feminism originally aimed to dismantle. It is the reemergence of gender essentialism. When "womanhood" is detached entirely from material reality and anchored solely in socially constructed roles, expressions, or internal feelings, it makes patriarchal gender stereotypes the baseline for legitimacy. The irony is stark: in trying to dismantle biological reductionism, hyper-constructivist frameworks often substitute it with performance reductionism. Under this framework, a female who rejects traditional feminine socialization or expression is framed not as a valid woman, but as a fundamentally flawed and empty one.

Materialist feminism focuses on how systems of power exploit physical realities, reproductive labor, maternal mortality, sex-selective abortion, sex-based violence, etc. Completely removing "female" as a distinct material category creates a severe structural blind spot. You cannot analyze or critique a system built on controlling females (patriarchy) if naming that biological reality is treated as inherently exclusionary or politically suspect.

Expanding inclusion for gender identity does not have to come at the cost of erasing the material, sex-based analysis required to dismantle misogyny.

The phrase "you are not your uterus" demonstrates a complete inversion: what began as a feminist defense against patriarchal objectification mutated into a tool for alienating women from their own material reality, identity, and choice. When that statement is turned against a woman who consciously chooses to ground her womanhood in her biological sex, the core feminist promise of self-determination gets inverted. What was designed as a shield against reproductive coercion becomes a weapon of ideological compliance to normative gender roles.

Feminism was built to expand a woman's choices, not narrow them. If liberation meant escaping the mandate that a female must be defined by her reproductive organs, it also meant protecting her right to decide how she relates to her own body. Telling a woman that her conscious, educated choice to center her female biological reality is "shallow" or "patriarchal" replaces old patriarchal rules with a new set of demands.

This dynamic creates a rigid ideological boundary. To be politically validated, a female is expected to treat her biological sex as irrelevant, unmentionable, or secondary. If she instead finds solidarity, meaning, or political relevance in her female body, her agency is dismissed as "internalized misogyny." It asserts that third parties know better than the woman herself what her relationship to her own body should be, a classic hallmark of patriarchal control disguised as enlightened discourse.

True bodily autonomy includes the right to embrace one's physical reality without needing permission or approval. When progressivism demands that women disavow their biological sex to qualify as liberated, it stops offering freedom from rigid norms and starts enforcing a new standard of female self-effacement.

Swapping forced subordination for forced disembodiment is not liberation. It simply changes who gets to tell women how they are allowed to feel about their own bodies.

FEMs and SAMs are an exclusionary danger to feminism.

To the FEMs and SAMs: as an infertile woman, I am my womb and my womb is me, and my identity does not exclude yours. Don't exclude mine.

FEMs and SAMs sit at the volatile intersection of modern gender theory, materialist feminism, and online sociopolitical commentary. These terms describe extremist sex-abolitionist or identity-first frameworks that reinscribe misogyny under the banner of "progressivism."

FEMs (Female-Exclusionary Misogynists) describe perspectives that, in an effort to detach gender identity from biology entirely, minimize or invalidate female biological reality from the definition of womanhood, effectively erasing sex-based social analysis.

SAMs (Sex-Abolitionist Misogynists) refers to positions advocating for the total dissolution of sex categories in favor of gender-only identity, which ignores how patriarchy specifically targets and exploits biological female capacity (reproductive labor, femicide, female infanticide, etc.) and the lived womanhood of many women.

The challenge of dismantling rigid gender norms without erasing the material, sex-based realities that drive systemic oppression is live and real. And I have seen it fall into the latter category more and more.

We scream "intersectionality" and rightly include all forms of womanhood, gender identities included. But what happens in turn? The single most historically oppressed demographic is now denied even validity. Female identity is labeled invalid, vapid, shallow, and dangerous to others. That without capitulation to one's identity being centered on gender, on the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of women, your identity in womanhood is somehow more shallow and more patriarchal.

Let's break that down real fast. There is a belief that if a female does not ascribe to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions of "womanhood," she is supporting patriarchy. I'm sorry, but have we all lost our god damn minds? That is so patriarchal and SO MISOGYNISTIC AND SEXIST that it boggles the mind. And somehow it gets inverted into progressivism.

I never believed in "so far left you go right" until now.

Radical gender constructivism demands adherence to gendered performance for social validation, reinventing the very patriarchal logic feminism originally aimed to dismantle. It is the reemergence of gender essentialism. When "womanhood" is detached entirely from material reality and anchored solely in socially constructed roles, expressions, or internal feelings, it makes patriarchal gender stereotypes the baseline for legitimacy. The irony is stark: in trying to dismantle biological reductionism, hyper-constructivist frameworks often substitute it with performance reductionism. Under this framework, a female who rejects traditional feminine socialization or expression is framed not as a valid woman, but as a fundamentally flawed and empty one.

Materialist feminism focuses on how systems of power exploit physical realities, reproductive labor, maternal mortality, sex-selective abortion, sex-based violence, etc. Completely removing "female" as a distinct material category creates a severe structural blind spot. You cannot analyze or critique a system built on controlling females (patriarchy) if naming that biological reality is treated as inherently exclusionary or politically suspect.

Expanding inclusion for gender identity does not have to come at the cost of erasing the material, sex-based analysis required to dismantle misogyny.

The phrase "you are not your uterus" demonstrates a complete inversion: what began as a feminist defense against patriarchal objectification mutated into a tool for alienating women from their own material reality, identity, and choice. When that statement is turned against a woman who consciously chooses to ground her womanhood in her biological sex, the core feminist promise of self-determination gets inverted. What was designed as a shield against reproductive coercion becomes a weapon of ideological compliance to normative gender roles.

Feminism was built to expand a woman's choices, not narrow them. If liberation meant escaping the mandate that a female must be defined by her reproductive organs, it also meant protecting her right to decide how she relates to her own body. Telling a woman that her conscious, educated choice to center her female biological reality is "shallow" or "patriarchal" replaces old patriarchal rules with a new set of demands.

This dynamic creates a rigid ideological boundary. To be politically validated, a female is expected to treat her biological sex as irrelevant, unmentionable, or secondary. If she instead finds solidarity, meaning, or political relevance in her female body, her agency is dismissed as "internalized misogyny." It asserts that third parties know better than the woman herself what her relationship to her own body should be, a classic hallmark of patriarchal control disguised as enlightened discourse.

True bodily autonomy includes the right to embrace one's physical reality without needing permission or approval. When progressivism demands that women disavow their biological sex to qualify as liberated, it stops offering freedom from rigid norms and starts enforcing a new standard of female self-effacement.

Swapping forced subordination for forced disembodiment is not liberation. It simply changes who gets to tell women how they are allowed to feel about their own bodies.

FEMs and SAMs are an exclusionary danger to feminism.

To the FEMs and SAMs: as an infertile woman, I am my womb and my womb is me, and my identity does not exclude yours. Don't exclude mine.

The female history of coverture and chattel status represents a long legal tradition in Western law where the biological female was systematically denied independent legal personhood. Rooted in patriarchal systems designed to control both females and their reproductive and economic output, these doctrines legally transformed females into dehumanized pieces of property/livestock.

Females were treated as chattel (movable personal property). They were legally owned, bought, or controlled first by their fathers, and then transferred to their husbands via financial contract (marriage).

Coverture originates in the Middle Ages under English common law. Coverture was the legal doctrine stating that upon contract, a female's legal rights were subsumed by those of her male husband.

Feme covert describes a female who was the property of a male. Because a feme covert had no separate legal identity, her physical body and reproductive capability were considered the legal property of the male. This resulted in severe restrictions and abuses.

A male possessed absolute legal right to physical discipline and sexual access. Because an owned females consent was legally considered permanently surrendered at contract, marital rape was not recognized as a crime in common law jurisdictions.

Because children were viewed as assets of the household estate, a mother had no legal rights to her own children, as they were the male's property. If a contract dissolved the male automatically retained full ownership of the children as property.

Any income a female generated through her physical labor belonged completely to male owner. He could legally demand her wages or contract her work out to third parties. Literal slavery if that wasn't apparent yet.

Any personal property, cash, or land a female owned prior to contract automatically transferred to the control and ownership of the male upon contract.

A feme covert could not sign contracts, buy or sell real estate, file lawsuits, or write a will without her owners explicit legal intervention.

Females could not vote, hold public office, or serve on juries. The legal assumption was that the owner represented the entire household's civic interests.

This penned legal system was functioning for roughly a thousand years. Though before that the slavery and ownership of females was still the primary function.

The framework was not disbanded until the late 20th century.

The last official legal remnants existed up into the '90s.

The historic legal concept that a husband could not rape his wife was gradually struck down state-by-state, ending completely in the US by 1993.

This position that it has been abolished is debatable as females legislative rights to bodily autonomy are currently denied in the West and are still legislated away from her.

The subjugation and treatment of females as property predated formalized legal doctrines like coverture or explicit chattel slavery and existed for roughly 10,000 to 12,000 years.

The official institutionalized Western laws have existed for a 1000 years.

It has been 32 years and 7 months since what is considered the final removal of chattel and coverture law.

Or perhaps it is still present and just not given any weight as the female sex is dehumanized, decentered and disregarded.

10,000 years of the female sex being owned as object, livestock and slave.

32 years of debatable freedom. Some may argue even that is not true.

The legal recognition of the female sex as independent human beings with full bodily and civic autonomy is an extraordinarily brief anomaly in human history. And even that is contested.

Our rights and oppression deserve to be discussed openly.

Here's the post that was removed twice even with a lot of support and agreements:

>First off, I hate that I have to do this to not get harassed but I do. I fully believe what I am about to say but I shouldn't have to hedge my belief in sexes but I do:

>I fully support Trans Rights. I believe Transwomen are Women And Transmen are Men. I believe they should have equal rights and the forces that oppress them contested. I respect their gender identity and their chosen gender.

>Now.

>The female and male sexes exist. Plus some relatively rare intersex identities. They exist. They are material biological conditions/expressions and they have systemic implications.

>It is perfectly alright if someone personally does not identify with their sex, and does not want to engage in a feminism that uses sex in theory. That's a personal choice and philosophy.

>What is not, is throwing a harassment campaign and bullying women into submission for discussing sex based theory.

>That is not acceptable behavior. Full stop.

>It is not acceptable to try to forcibly deny an aspect of someone's personhood, especially an oppressed class because it personally makes you uncomfortable or is not something you identify with.

That's it. That's the post that was removed twice despite broad support.

And here is the reason given:

>FeminismUncensored-ModTeam

>Neutral

>Removed under Pro-Feminism and Love, not Hate.

>This post repeats a gender-critical framing that treats trans-inclusive feminism as harassment of cis women and centers sex-based theory as the line feminists must not be “bullied” away from. Even with stated support for trans rights, that narrative misrepresents trans people and trans-inclusive feminists, reinforces exclusionary sex-essentialism, and obstructs this sub’s anti-sexist, feminist mission.

>Since we are having a TERF infestation in the sub, we will need to remove even every single dog-whistle until the sub is functional again.

I am not a TERF.

I know what this is. And that's the oldest oppression know to humanity. And that is the oppression of the female sex, and body. This is sexism

Feminism has been co-opted to the point where a place designated as uncensored feminism censors the female existing at all.

The mods excuse doesn't identify a factual error in my post. It doesn't quote a specific line and say "this misrepresents trans people." It asserts that the framing itself stating that sex exists and that harassment over saying so is a problem, constitutes "sex-essentialism" and "misrepresentation," full stop. That's a definitional move. It redefines "sex exists as a material category" as inherently exclusionary, which means no version of my argument could pass, regardless of how it's hedged. I gave explicit trans-rights affirmation, explicit respect for gender identity, explicit statement that this is about material biology not gender- all things I very much believe in, and it was removed anyway.

Edit: r/FeminismUncensored * woops.

Edit 2: Every single one of my post needs preauthorized mod approval by the mod team now.

Edit 3: :( It seems I have not found the right place to speak what I believe. And I would like to reiterate what I believe:

• Sex is material and produces distinct patterns of embodiment, vulnerability, and historical oppression.
• Gender identity can be freely expressed and should not be met with discrimination, violence, or denial of ordinary civil rights.
• A trans woman does not share the same sex-based material conditions or the same historical sex-class oppression as a female person, and it is legitimate to say so.
• Holding both of the above does not require hostility, exclusion from society, or the claim that trans people are “evil.”

Trans people are people and deserve equal rights and they are not a negative monolith :(

The physical, genetic, and anatomical traits used to classify female sex are divided into primary sex characteristics (organs present at birth and directly involved in reproduction) and secondary sex characteristics (features that typically develop during puberty)

Primary sex characteristics present at birth, are internal and external reproductive structures are essential for biological reproduction. In females, they include Gonads: The ovaries, which are responsible for producing ova and secreting female sex hormones. Internal Reproductive Anatomy: The uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, and vagina. External Genitalia: The vulva, which includes the labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris.

Secondary sex characteristics generally develop later in life, primarily during puberty, driven by increased levels of estrogen. They are not directly involved in reproduction but contribute to physiological distinctions between sexes. In females, they include: Breast Development: Enlargement of breast tissue and maturation of mammary glands. Skeletal Structure: Widening of the pelvis (hips) and a typically lower waist-to-hip ratio. Body Fat Distribution: An increase in relative body fat percentage, with fat commonly deposited around the hips, thighs, and buttocks. Body and Facial Hair: Growth of pubic and underarm hair, with generally less body hair on the arms and legs compared to biological males. Voice Pitch: Generally a higher vocal pitch due to shorter vocal cords.

In addition to physical traits, biological sex is often defined by other foundational factors: Chromosomes: Typical biological females have two X chromosomes (XX) on the 23rd pair, whereas typical biological males have an X and a Y chromosome (XY). Hormones: While both sexes produce both types of hormones, female biological development is primarily driven by higher levels of estrogens (such as estradiol) and progestogens (such as progesterone).

Sex is a complex combination of chromosomes, hormones, and anatomical traits, and not all individuals fit neatly into strict traditional binaries. Variations in these developmental markers exist, resulting in a spectrum of physiological diversity rather than an absolute rule.

Sex or being female sexed does not mean you are better than anyone else. There is no hierarchy in sex.

There are superstructures that have been opposed over the sexes.

The female sex is historically systematically and institutionally oppressed.

First off, I hate that I have to do this to not get harassed but I do. I fully believe what I am about to say but I shouldn't have to hedge my belief in sexes but I do:

I fully support Trans Rights. I believe Transwomen are Women And Transmen are Men. I believe they should have equal rights and the forces that oppress them contested. I respect their gender identity and their chosen gender.

Now.

The female and male sexes exist. Plus some relatively rare intersex identities. They exist. They are material biological conditions/expressions and they have systemic implications.

It is perfectly alright if someone personally does not identify with their sex, and does not want to engage in a feminism that uses sex in theory. That's a personal choice and philosophy.

What is not, is throwing a harassment campaign and bullying women into submission for discussing sex based theory.

That is not acceptable behavior. Full stop.

It is not acceptable to try to forcibly deny an aspect of someone's personhood, especially an oppressed class because it personally makes you uncomfortable or is not something you identify with.

Sympathy and moral authority are resources, and wherever there's a resource, the group with more institutional leverage, men, captures it even inside movements explicitly built to center someone else.

Intersectionality is specifically exploitable because it was built to show how oppressions compound and interact.

It was never meant to produce a strict hierarchy where one claimed axis trumps and silences another.

But once "who is more oppressed" becomes the currency, anyone who can plausibly claim an oppressed axis has an incentive to deploy it.

And men have the asymmetric power even here.

Everything. Every damn movement. Men become the center of it. Even feminism, even women's liberation.

Why?

When black lives matter as a movement was attempted to be co-opted by all lives matter, peoople understood it for what it was, racism.

But not here.

A queer man's claim to oppression moves through the room with less friction than a straight woman's claim to hers, even when the woman's claim maps onto an actual documented material hierarchy that he privileges from greatly while she is oppressed.

It's the standard move dominant groups make once a resistance movement gets enough legitimacy to matter.

Absorb its vocabulary, redirect its energy inward, and dilute the original claim until the group it was built to protect can't get a clean sentence out about their own condition without someone reframing it as being about him.

Coopt. Weaponized. Install a hierarchy. Position women on the bottom.

Over and over and over and over and over again.

When a liberation framework or an analytical tool like intersectionality is coopted into a competitive market of grievances, the group with the underlying structural advantage will almost always find a way to game the metric.

It weaponizes the very empathy and inclusivity that women built into these movements against them.

I'm done applying asymmetric empathy.

The absolute horrid misogyny I have witnessed ever since this biphobic discourse started from men who consider and call themselves allies and feminists is astounding.

"Rape-jacketing." This last one that I've seen pushed me over the edge. A man saying the anti-sjws were right that women as a whole were going to start using misogyny to get away with "shit." And that we are using rape-jacketing.

That we are faking victimhood.

That's what women are being called. Especially if they are white and straight the consensus is that queer men are suffering more tyranny and oppression and therefore misogyny is warranted and acceptable.

I know what I'm going to get from a straight CIS man. It is very cookie cutter misogyny with not a lot of thought.

A man who believes he is an ally and oppressed, that is misogyny of a different flavor.

The audacity of men who consider themselves progressive feminists being some of the most vile misogynists gets under my nerves so much more.

The type of man who believes he is separate from the privileges of patriarchy or that he is not the oppressor class because he is queer in some sense.

Not only is it more infuriating it is more insidious.

The man who makes his entire identity being a progressive ally signals safety. And then when he's just another aggressive, violent, misogynistic predator it can take women off guard.

4b.

Whether you're queer or straight.

A sexual preference for a straight person to be attracted to another straight person and to not be attracted to queerness is not homophobia.

I'm going to say it plain. The attempt to try to force someone who does not share your sexual preferences, actually, let's drop the act the only person they're trying to force is women, the attempt to force women into a sexual preference that they do not have for the man's benefit is predatory misogyny.

I am not straight. But I know what these men are.

Male sexual entitlement. Faux progressive. Misogynists.

Fuck them.

It just goes to show that queerness does not make a man, not a man. It does not remove his privilege. It does not remove his aggression or domineering violence.

Ps: Holy shit. The way there is a rise in queer men claiming they experienced misogyny and I am talking CIS men queer CIS men saying they experience misogyny. No, no you do not. You cannot and will never experience misogyny. It is the oppression of women. Why have they taken over everything? A woman can have nothing, not even her own oppression without it being colonized by a damn man.

The cognitive dissonance of faux-progressive male entitlement is staggering. When men who style themselves as allies or members of marginalized communities weaponize their identity to demand sexual compliance or invalidate women's realities, it isn't just regular misogyny.

It's a deliberate, gaslighting betrayal.

Coopting the language of social justice to shame women for their boundaries or worse, inventing concepts like "rape-jacketing" lays bare how thin the veneer of allyship actually is for men who still view women's bodies and spaces as public utilities. Queerness or marginalized identities do not magically erase male socialization, male privilege, or the entitlement that comes with living under patriarchy.

The audacity to claim that women are faking victimhood while simultaneously attempting to colonize and dictate women's sexual autonomy is a masterclass in projection.

Boundaries are not bigotry. A lack of attraction is not oppression. And male sexual entitlement, no matter how loudly it wraps itself in the flag of progressivism, remains exactly what it is.

We'll keep this one short and sweet.

If you deny the sex of womanhood, you are a misogynist and you are not a feminist.

If you deny the gender of womanhood, you are a misogynist and you are not a feminist.

Some people only experience one and it is not their prerogative or right to try to erase the reality of the other.

If you do not experience one of these poles, it is your duty to understand you do not know the material conditions of living under the particular type of womanhood. And therefore it is your duty.to not talk over the people who do. It is your duty to listen with humility and a lack of arrogance to the people who do have material experience under the different types of womanhood.

Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary feminism are the same harms.

I have become deeply frustrated with current discourse. I made a comment in response where someone was accusing a woman of being morally impure and phobic and exclusionary for asking why intersectionality is selectively applied to Feminism and I would like create a larger discussion with my reply:

 Feminism is predominantly the only oppression where intersectionality is selectively DENIED.

Feminism is a women's liberation movement, liberating from the misogyny that oppressed female bodies.

Misogyny originated roughly 10,000 years ago as the oldest oppression know to man, that influenced every oppression, institutions and system of power that followed.

Misogyny originated when agriculture began and men discovered through live stock and the ownership and husbandry (funny word there huh?) of animals that they also played a part in life's creation and the learned a greater understanding of genetics. Simultaneously the understanding that more bodies to work the field equals more yield.

And thus began the oppression, enslavement, systematic rape, torture and control of women BODIES and reproductive facilities to install patrilineal society and to control women and babies as product.

Misogyny and the horrific oppression of women was originally about the oppression of woman as a SEX with retroactive adhoc gender stereotypes placed on the SEX to justify the dehumanization, to psychologically manipulate and control the women, and to extract free labor in the form of "domestic" work.

But was and still is fundamentally tied to female body. Gender being a side effect of that true core.

And yet everywhere this is denied. The misogyny being in large part about the female sex is denied.

The oppression that women face TODAY is deprioritized.

A woman can do her best to be intersectional to all other oppressions, like racism and transphobia and then denied that she is oppressed AT ALL if she is not queer or is white.

A movement for women's liberation can become hostile to the very idea that it is predominantly women's sex that is the core of misogyny, despite being anthropologically and historically correct.

Even acknowledging this will get a woman labeled as any moral failure under the sun. For the very sin of correctly identifying her oppression despite her genuine beliefs in egalitarianism and rights for all demographics.

A woman can be extremely well educated on race, class, and other systems of power and liberation efforts she can support them fully, and when asking for the same in return for her oppressed body she is DENIED and told she is a racist, homophobic, transphobic, or told to harm herself.

THATS NOT INTERSECTIONALITY.

Misogyny includes gender issues and there is space for EVERY and ANYONE effected by those things. But if your price of admission is the decentering of women's bodies and the denial of their oppression in the first place, the price is too high and you're asking us to pay for it in our blood.

Ariana Grande has an eating disorder and a long history of promoting anorexia. And I mean literally promoting anorexia, explicitly. In the 2010's she ran a pro-anorexia Tumbler page encouraging unhealthy restrictive "diets," bodychecking. The whole pro-ana bullshittery.

Ariana Grande and the people like her are not unaware of their influence. There is quite a bit of difference between a woman struggling severely with an eating disorder within the confines of their own life, and a celebrity or influencer.

She is not entitled nor enforced to be in the public eye. She and her team have explicitly made statements justifying and normalizing severe emaciation as her being "the most healthy she's ever been."

I want you to take a moment to really wonder when Ariana Grande is dead, how many dead girls and women could be linked back to her. The answer is certainly more than 0.

Anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, with an estimated crude overall death rate of roughly 5% to 6%, and a risk of death 5 to 6 times higher than the general population.

She is posted in pro-ana spaces as "body goals." She has without a doubt already influenced many women to adopt anorexia and some of them will ultimately die.

And why? She chose to embody and live to a standard of patriarchal, imperial, colonial, capitalistic, thin and weak white womanhood. We all face these pressures. And any of us who have any influence over ANYONE, children, friends, family have a DUTY to unpack and not reenforce the oppression of women and girls.

Ariana is not just complicit. In her music video Petals, whether by her direction of not, her role in this is directly acknowledge in the "twist ending." She is the standard, she is chosen by the systems and she plays her part.

She has been told. She knows. We know.

I will not reduce this conversation to "I just care about her health and want to get better."

No. I care about the health of the countless girls who will never have the privilege or resources that she has. I care about THEIR health and what she is knowing doing to THEM.

Everything is getting odder. Faster. More obvious. And at the same time everything is getting hotter. Much hotter. It is difficult for people to keep pretending like we're not on the precipice of mass death.

The governments, the politicians, the megacorps, the institutional technologists, the institutional scientists, have always known that climate change is legitimate, for the most part. I mean some puppets are dumb as fuck but usually these are very affluent, very educated people.

Things don't make sense. Some things look like a death drive. Creating massive mega data centers that use up an enormous amount of water while the world is running out of drinking water quickly, exponentially. With such speed that even the heavily propagandized are getting nervous.

If they know what's coming then why are they doing that?

Well you see despite knowing what climate change was real, the systems and institutions that these affluent, very educated yet very arrogant people function on, is based on a short-term profit, power accumulation, and a hierarchical dominance model.

To have done something about climate change would have been to completely invert those systems. To think about the long-term survival of all of humanity over the Dow. Over their board members. Over their stocks. It would have meant relinquishing the resources, money and power that these people and systems had accumulated for thousands of years. And they simply would not do that.

But what does a human do and unfortunately they really are human, when they are stuck with the cognitive dissonance that they know if they do not stop they could cause the extinction of humanity, and simultaneously that they will not stop because they will not relinquish their elite status? They need a mechanism to release that cognitive dissonance. And that mechanism was techno-optimism.

"We can keep robbing the world and the people. We can keep draining and warming up the planet because eventually we are smart enough to figure out a solution. We will fix it. We will fix it in a way where we don't have to lose any of our profit or power. In fact we will increase those things increase our accumulation and hoarding of those things." This is what they thought.

And then as things tend to do, everything started happening faster than expected.

They are still existing in that techno-optimism it is necessary for them to not have complete psychological collapse. However, there is a difference. Now they are terrified. Now they can feel it breathing down their necks, the weight of what they wrought. The clock-ticking down. The fact that they're running out of time and no meaningful advance has come forward that will make a dent in what is going to come.

Really the only hope left is that AI advances enough becomes so exceptionally intelligent beyond anything that humans understand that it will be able to conjure many miraculous technologies.

This is an unsubstantiated theory.

But one not only do they believe in but that they have to believe in.

So if you ever wondered why what they're doing makes no sense, why? It's also weird. It actually does make sense in their twisted minds.

Their greed and their arrogance robbed humanity of its future and they're going all in on AI saving at least them, at least some.

AJJ - Good Luck Everybody, it's a good album, not everyone's genre cup of tea. But stuff like that is what gets me through being able to see this pattern and parts of what's happening.

Good luck everybody.

I have had a cluster of experiences mostly falling in a 2-year span. But some oddities when I was younger.

My experiences could be pushed into a category of decently positive to quite negative. I know that sometimes its not what people like to discuss. I know many people have very optimistic view points on their experiences.

I don't want to put my stories or experiences out in words somewhere like here. They are difficult to convey with a lot of contextual information and I don't like how they sound.

But things I have walked away with from the experience is that I believe there is competing or differing agendas wants and wills everywhere. Benevolence, malevolent, neutral.

The last of the experiences had happened around a year ago. Those extremely negative.

And even in after that negativity I cannot help but feel the abandonment after everything returned to normal and went silent.

I feel used. Judged. Abandoned.

Another thing I walked away with from the experiences that I think humans and probably other things are prone to mistranslation and misunderstanding. So I hold no rigid belief that my feelings actually convey reality.

But it is something that is weighing on me today. Feeling abandoned by something somewhere else, perhaps many somethings.

I thought maybe this might be something that other experiencers might relate to as well.

I made this comment on this subreddit in regards to the discussion of how many people set off fireworks despite the immense dangers.

I really wanted to make it a full post.

This was in response to someone talking about anti-government stances being quite strong in a lot of Coloradans. Which I don't personally find to be a bad thing as I personally believe the US government is a deeply corrupt State.

But anti-government to set off fireworks? No. Not at all. That's a cop-out or idiocy:

"None of this is anti-government. It's anti -community and anti-human.

It's people who, despite the knowledge that we are in a horrible drought after we experienced the worst snowpack throughout written history. Of. all. time. Decide to set off fireworks.

There is nothing anti-government about putting your neighbors your home and your environment in danger.

I am anti-government the US government is incredibly corrupt.

Simultaneously sometimes they say things that go with actual logic like don't set off fireworks after the worst snowpack in all of history in Colorado during wildfire season.

You shouldn't have to have a government tell you that.

You should be intelligent, empathetic and reasonable. Just because that's what a human being should be.

No one is sticking it to the government by being a tremendously selfish and entitled asshole."

I see a lot of people claiming that this is about anti-government and freedom and liberty.

But that is cope and a crock of shit. The type of people I've seen bragging about setting off fireworks, they're not doing shit that is anti-government. Half of the time it's the same people who worship cults of personality within politics with merch and bumper stickers. Someone who makes it their entire personality to rally for a political party or pundit. Hell half the time theyre military this is Colorado Springs after all.

No, this is LARP. This is using a famed belief in freedom and anti-government stances to just get away with doing bad shit because it makes them feel good.

For those that are like this, can you at least stop pretending like you give a shit about anything but yourself?

Don't say it's for a cause. It's not. Say it's because you want to do it regardless of consequences because you believe that your immediate desire is tantamount to anything.

I'm someone who can get a bit stressed from high potency weed. And I personally run quite high on anxiety in general.

However, smoking in general is very therapeutic for me. It helps me get outside and gives me something to occupy my hands an mind so I don't get as anxious.

I picked up smoking cigarettes again during a stressful move, and this is my pivot off of them, as I find them quite unplseant and make me feel sick (for obvious reasons).

This mix was quite nice. A little harsh on the throat but I'm thinking that's because I got a bit hasty and smoked my first before the marshmallow root was more hydrated and married with the other herbs.

The weed was the strain Witches Weed, with 6% THC, 9% CBD.

The blue lotus seemed to have added a subtle and very calming softness.