See. Okay. This Is True About Chairs. And While I Personally Think Adult Human Female, Female Meaning

see. okay. this is true about chairs. and while i personally think “adult human female, female meaning of the sex which produces ova” is a very clear and comprehensive definition, not everyone agrees. and, for the sake of argument, that’s fine! but that’s not how the law works. lawmaking bodies agonize over the precise definitions of terms to ensure that the law does what they’re hoping it will do, and is not easily misused. that’s their job.

in ireland, the bread that fast food restaurants use is legally considered cake because of the sugar content. cake is regulated differently than bread. do you and i need to argue the finer points of cake and bread? how sweet do you think something has to be so we can consider it cake? does it matter? not really. but it does when you’re trying to tax staple foods and non-staple foods differently.

there have been multiple court cases in the US determining if a taco is a sandwich (as of May 2024, it is, as per the superior court of indiana, fun fact). is a taco a sandwich? i don’t know! i don’t really think so. if someone said “hey i made sandwiches” and gave me a taco, i’d be confused. and anyway, does it matter? not really. but it does when i’m trying to determine if a taco restaurant can open in a space that won’t allow sandwich shops.

is a barbershop different than a hair salon? i think so. i go to a hair salon, my brother goes to a barbershop, if we switched our appointments we’d both be unhappy. it matters for the sake of communication, but is it a super important distinction? not really. but what if i signed a non-compete agreement with the barbershop i work at that said i wouldn’t work at any nearby barbershop for six months after terminating my contract? can i work at a hair salon? now it matters.

if i needed fifty chairs for an event, and the company i contracted with sent fifty horses, or fifty tables, they could argue “but it’s something with four legs that a person can sit on!” and they’d be correct. but i would know i’d been given something different than what i asked for, and i would expect the chair supplier to know that, too. so if i want to demand a refund/return/exchange on the basis that i’ve received the wrong product, do i have a claim?

so, okay, you feel we can’t define the term “woman” perfectly. or maybe we can define it, as in we know what we’re trying to talk about, but we don’t have a good term for it. wouldn’t be the first time it happened! but if we are creating a legal category, it does in fact need to have parameters. meaningful parameters.

if i want to give some speeches promoting radical gender acceptance, i could probably get away with never outright defining the word woman. but what if i want men who kill women to have their crimes classified as hate crimes? i need to have a meaningfully defined category of what a woman is and what makes one different from a man. mexico requires that congressional candidates be split 50-50 between men and women to enforce gender parity. “woman” has to be a meaningfully defined category, or else … well, you’ll end up with the same problem they keep having to deal with.

if we want protections or resources for women, “women” have to be a meaningful legal category. if it is a category anyone can opt into, then it is a category that includes anyone, which is not a meaningful category when it is meant to include only half of people. also women aren’t chairs.

One of the reasons why women were forbidden from going outside under patriarchy was not to just ensure that women stay loyal, modest or the honour culture. It was also to prevent sisterhood among women because sisterhood is very important, it's a very powerful tool, the restrictions on women's freedom to the point of their own circles and friends was to prevent women from realising their capability. It was to abuse women and isolate them from their families. It was to reduce women to f*** toys and to incubators. Everybody recognises that. Sisterhood is detrimental to patriarchy.

Marriage is NOT for women. At its core, it is a man and HIS wife. It's never going to be for women. A woman, no matter how liberal her husband is, will always be taking a hit to her core value as an individual the second she marries. The man gains respect, and the woman loses herself and becomes a part of the man. The man sucks the inherent value out of the woman and attaches it to himself upon marriage. To say it is anything else, "union" of lovers, etc, is just a story fed to women. Look at Disney. The whole story of a princess continues for as long as she is single. The ending is when a man marries her... for then, she is reduced to the man's wife. It's not a happy ending. It's the end of a woman's autonomy. Nuclear family is a myth, they've cheated, they've had concubines, they've abused us, chained us, locked us at home all for the sake of "nuclear family" which never actually existed. It is a lie. Marriage is a lie.

hate when the dash is dead. stop working and sleeping and get the fuck ONLINE

Dropping this here for anyone who may not already know about it. paywallreader.com

This is a cia document on cointel operations and bringing down organized groups. I want to speak on this in reference to what I've seen feminism turn into. What I've seen LGBTQ politics turn into. What "leftist" politics have turned into but I want to be able to bring up specific examples and sources.

I'm not saying it's a psyop with actual govt agencies directly involved but we cannot pretend that certain voices arent being elevated and listened to.

en.m.wikipedia.org

COINTELPRO - Wikipedia

Yes Im sourcing Wikipedia but if you are interested I suggest starting on the references tab and looking at those texts. A jumping off point.