Disadvantages, sociobiological feminism and (possibly) why I identify as a cissexual female and cisgender woman.

Let's begin with what I believe is the most advantaged and disadvantaged.  If you're a rich, white, western, commonly abled, heterosexual, cissexual male and cisgender man (and I'm sure I've forgotten a few 'categories'), then, congratulations, you won the privilege lottery!  If you're a rich, white, western, commonly abled, heterosexual, cissexual female and cisgender woman (as I am), you are slightly less privileged than your male counterpart.  A quick succession of changes to the rest of those categories and you will eventually find yourself at the bottom, the place where the least privileged reside: This would be the poor, black, non-western, uncommonly abled, homosexual, trans/intersex/non binary and femme-identifying person.   Even in cases where privilege would not exist this would be true: Women/femme identifying and female assigned persons have more challenges to face just by virtue of being who they are.

Sociobiological feminism is a term I like to use to describe the antithesis of evolutionary psychology.  Rather than a case of the Culture of Matter, it is the Matter of Culture.  The first is often used to defend much of the victim-blaming that goes on within our societies, with the responsibility to change one's behaviour placed on the victim and which was the impetus for making phrases such as 'boys will be boys' more acceptable in current mainstream society.  While the latter suggests that much of what we perceive as encased in stone when it comes to gender and their roles, is actually rooted deep within the socialization of oneself into his/her culture.  Turning this on its head requires that we take back ownership of our bodies and take responsibility for our actions and change the way we are socialized within each of our respective, and throughout all, cultures.

Cissexual female and cisgender woman are terms to describe a female/woman who identifies with the body and roles they matured and developed in.

How these all work together to define who I am, at least in one manner, comes to this:  I believe that I must work to change the disadvantages that I, as a woman, experience and I feel that the best way for me, PERsonally, to do this is to not only work from a vantage point with the best possible understanding of these disadvantages but also the best possible place to make changes.  That means the vantage point where the most burdensome role of society's and nature's expectations reside entirely on me. And yet also where the responsibility of the position that can best affect change along that axis lies. As a woman/femme-identifying person and assigned female I will be the one socialized to want and expect to have kids. And as women/femme identifying persons and assigned females, we are the only ones who will be forced to accept the reality of that prospect.  Even if you are a (non-op) trans/intersex/non-binary man/masculine identifying person or a (pre-op/post-op) trans/intersex/non binary man/masculine identifying person, your expectations or reality are definitely going to vary from that one once you have identified who you are, of court's.

I am also non-sexual (activity-wise, NOT identity) and have no idea whether I would be able to take certain kinds of birthcontrol/contraception.  You might think that this completely blows out of the water my previous theory on disadvantages, but I don't think it does.  I believe that the way the body is structured is sexist, as I pointed out earlier.  I (again, PERsonally) think that making use of these functions (functions in the body usually assigned female that differ from the body usually assigned male) only underscores that sexism. 

What do YOU think...?

Out of the Ashes: Gisella Perl and the reasons why abortion is NOT the 'new Holocaust'

New post.  To be updated in the near future.  In the meantime visit this link.

In the (perhaps not so) near future, I have come to the point where I feel I can finally do this woman some justice.

Gisella Perl performed abortions for Jewish women who would have otherwise been sent to the gas chambers if they had RETAINED THEIR PREGNANCIES.  Let me repeat, if they had RETAINED THEIR PREGNANCIES.  For many Jewish women these could have been otherwise wanted pregnancies, but they were forced, by circumstance, to have an abortion or leave any children they already, or other members of their families they, had, behind.

Hitler was AntiChoice for German AND Jewish women.  He forced all German women to carry pregnancies to term, while forcing Jewish women to terminate theirs or lose their own, and the fetal, lives.  NEITHER of those positions is ProChoice.  ProChoice, after all, as the name SHOULD imply, defines a movement that wants women to determine for themSELVES whether they will terminate or continue a pregnancy, via ongoing, informed and exPLIcit consent. 

Hitler was the very antiTHEsis of this.  He believed that women, especially Jewish women, were inferior and did not deserve the full right to autonomy that commonly rich, abled, white, heterosexual, cissexual, cisgender, German males did.  He denied ALL women the right to choose who uses their bodies and when and how they are used, with ongoing, explicit and informed consent.  He denied them this right that all German men had even where another's life was involved, simply because he thought they were 'superior'.

So, you tell me (if you want to Godwin), which side is promoting a 'newer version of the Holocaust'?

Nicaragua. A dangerous place to have a uterus.

This... this is just sickening.  A woman who lives in a Central American country is denied her own right to live because she is pregnant.  Make no mistake, this is what would happen in any country where abortion is made illegal.  This is what PLers willingly work towards,  A legal body having a say in a medical body's decisions sets a dangerous precedent.  If complications can arise in a relatively normal and healthy pregnancy and delivery without warning, often ending with disastrous results for BOTH the fetus and woman, even under the watch of a medical professional, having the government determine what constitutes life-threatening would be even MORE disastrous, for the reasons just stated.

The woman will die if she does not get treatment for the cancer.  And, most likely, the cancer will kill her before the fetus is viable.  So, now, two humans will be dead rather than just one.

Also, the woman has a 10-year old son.  So, if she dies, the boy is left an orphan.

Yes, I see how much PLers care for the born.  Not at all.  Yes, I see how much PLers care for the unborn.  The fetus, at least, gets a passing nod.  But, most of all, I see how much PLers really care about punishing a woman for daring to have non-procreative sex.  Absolutely.