Women’s Book History is not for women
More pathetic Qusilings who don’t even know they’re Quislings.
Good morning! Just a reminder that our page celebrates things related to book history for all of the following:
– cis women
– trans women
– cis men
– trans men
– nonbinary folksand everyone else in between! We usually post about women, but that’s because that’s our jam. We do, and always have, included trans women in our category of “women’s book history” and this stance is not up for debate. If this bothers you, we encourage you to keep scrolling. Anyone who posts harassing messages about trans women will have those comments deleted and then they will be banned from the page.
In other words they call themselves Women’s Book History but they don’t mean it. If you don’t agree with them that men are women just as women are women, you should go away, even if you are yourself a woman. If you don’t put men who pretend to be women first, then you’re the wrong kind of woman altogether and will be silenced.
True to their word, they are removing dissenting comments.
why would you include cis-men in your Women’s Book History to begin with? And trans men, if you believe trans men are men, period? That basically just makes it Book History, not Women’s Book History, even disregarding the refusal to accept dissent that men can be women just by saying so. And non-binary ‘folks’ won’t acknowledge being women, even if they are, so why include them?
This is just ridiculous. Words have no meaning anymore.
But, but, but… feminism is for everyone, right? This situation is just a corallary.
And by “corallary” I mean steaming pile of ordure. Words don’t mean anything anymore.
Not quite. It isn’t for women, unless of course you listen to those stupid, hateful, TERF-y second wave feminists, who ignorantly believe that women’s rights actually have something to do with women.