It’s really sad seeing women make videos making fun of how their former selves did their makeup (example: “how I looked doing my makeup in 2016”, “we all thought we did something with the 90’s blue eyeshadow”, etc.). Because they act like the problem was them not knowing how to do makeup…instead of recognising that the problem is that trends change constantly, and women are expected to relearn how to paint their faces to keep up.
They don’t seem to realise that the makeup they’re wearing in these videos that they deem to be “better” and “right”, will be subjected to the same mockery the looks they laugh at today are. One day, they’ll all be laughing at “soap brows” and “e-girl blush” while wearing the current trend. And then they’ll mock that trend in a few years.
It’s a never-ending cycle of makeup looks going out of style, and being deemed Bad for it. In the 90’s and 2010’s you thought your makeup looked great, so did everyone else. You laugh at it today, thinking your 2020’s makeup looks good. Do you think you won’t be laughing at it in 2030? Do you not see where this is going?
Women’s faces are a trend. Men look back at pictures of their younger selves and may cringe at their hair or their clothes, but their face is the same and never the subject of mockery. But women? Women’s faces change because makeup changes. Women don’t just cringe at the clothes and hair of their younger selves—they cringe at their faces. It’s sad.
The only way to stop this is to stop wearing makeup. That tik-tok trend makeup you think looks good? I promise you, it will be a joke in ten years. Maybe even five. And the reason this keeps happening isn’t because you were bad at makeup back then. It’s because all the looks you worked so hard to get good at looked ridiculous all along—you were just blinded by trends. Today they’re “soap brows”. Tomorrow when the novelty wears off, they’ll be what everyone else sees—ridiculously brushed up eyebrows. Today it’s “e-girl blush. Tomorrow when the trend dies away, it’ll be what everyone else sees—sickly looking.
What I want to get at here, is that it breaks my heart to see women fall into the never-ending cycle of learning to paint their face a certain way because it’s the trend, then having to learn a new thing in a couple years when that trend becomes a laughingstock. And saying “wow I was so stupid back then, but I know better now” every five years.
Faces are supposed to be timeless. Let’s keep it that way.
I want lesbians to be the parents of their children without the government or anyone else trying to get in their way. But isn't a birth certificate more about biology? It would be important for health reasons to know who the biological relative to the baby is, same with the baby's biological sex. Unless I am completely misunderstanding what a birth certificate is and maybe it's more of a government thing than I thought? Now that I think about it, I don't know what a birth certificate for a baby born to a parent and a step parent would look like either.
You are completely misunderstanding what a birth certificate is.A birth certificate is a LEGAL document designating parental rights.
A paternity DNA test is a medical document that shows someone’s genetic history.
A birth certificate is a legal document that a child will need every day of their life. A birth certificate designates who is legally responsible for a child’s life.
IF YOU PUT A MAN’S NAME ON A LESBIAN FAMILY’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU ARE GIVING HIM PARENTAL RIGHTS.
Whoever told you birth certificates are about ~biological reality~ is a lesbophobe.
My brother’s friend does not legally have a father. His mother did not give his biological father parental rights. She elected not to put his name on the birth certificate. She did not want her shitty ex-boyfriend to have any legal parental relationship with her son. That is her right as a woman.
“Gender critical feminists” want to take this right away from all women because they are blinded by their own lesbophobia.
Don’t just open the tab and leave it unread. Here, I’ll give you a short section to read right now:
The facts of biology are suddenly forgotten once the so called “non traditional” family is composed of a man and a woman. No government in any country is removing non-biological fathers from birth certificates, even though the man in the birth certificate has no biological relation to the child. On the contrary, most countries have pretty straightforward laws about the recognition of non-biological fathers as long as the couple in question is heterosexual.
I live in a small Italian village, one of those places where secrets don’t exists and your problems are everyone’s problems. The happy nuclear family a few houses down the road couldn’t conceive a child naturally because the husband is sterile. Not the end of the world these days. The Italian law allows IVF to heterosexual couples. The happy nuclear family simply picked a sperm donor, and a beautiful girl was born, she has her mother’s eyes.
The father on the birth certificate is not the donor, however the happy nuclear family didn’t receive a letter from the Italian government telling the husband that he is not the father of his child. No, it only happened to lesbian families in Italy.
So where is your truth now? Your biological reality. Aren’t we here to protect children and fight for reality? According to you this man shouldn’t have legal rights on the child his wife birthed. Or does it work differently because their family is approved by the church? Oh but this is different, he has a wife, he is heterosexual, he could have been fertile! Well, I could have been born male. To quote every mamma on the peninsula: if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.
The birth certificate is a legal document, not a biological fact. The law, unlike biology, IS a social construct and cannot dictate biological fact. That’s why there’s a push to enshrine gender identity into the law, because gender can never be a biological fact. Birth certificates are amended, for example, after adoption, to list the child’s legal parents. Not their genetic/biological parents, necessarily. So if a parent and step parent were the legal parents of a child, that child’s birth certificate would be amended after the step parent legally adopts the child, and the corresponding biological parent would be removed.
What this is, is an attack on lesbian families. On our fitness as potential parents, mothers, and responsible adults. I’ve personally had friends who had their children taken from them and given to unfit fathers in bad home environments, because the mother, who had been the custodial parent without issue, came out as a lesbian. Admittedly, I’m older than the usual tumblr userbase and my friends are older than me, so I had hoped that this sort of attitude was left in the past. But apparently not.
I want lesbians to be the parents of their children without the government or anyone else trying to get in their way. But isn't a birth certificate more about biology? It would be important for health reasons to know who the biological relative to the baby is, same with the baby's biological sex. Unless I am completely misunderstanding what a birth certificate is and maybe it's more of a government thing than I thought? Now that I think about it, I don't know what a birth certificate for a baby born to a parent and a step parent would look like either.
You are completely misunderstanding what a birth certificate is.A birth certificate is a LEGAL document designating parental rights.
A paternity DNA test is a medical document that shows someone’s genetic history.
A birth certificate is a legal document that a child will need every day of their life. A birth certificate designates who is legally responsible for a child’s life.
IF YOU PUT A MAN’S NAME ON A LESBIAN FAMILY’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU ARE GIVING HIM PARENTAL RIGHTS.
Whoever told you birth certificates are about ~biological reality~ is a lesbophobe.
My brother’s friend does not legally have a father. His mother did not give his biological father parental rights. She elected not to put his name on the birth certificate. She did not want her shitty ex-boyfriend to have any legal parental relationship with her son. That is her right as a woman.
“Gender critical feminists” want to take this right away from all women because they are blinded by their own lesbophobia.
Don’t just open the tab and leave it unread. Here, I’ll give you a short section to read right now:
The facts of biology are suddenly forgotten once the so called “non traditional” family is composed of a man and a woman. No government in any country is removing non-biological fathers from birth certificates, even though the man in the birth certificate has no biological relation to the child. On the contrary, most countries have pretty straightforward laws about the recognition of non-biological fathers as long as the couple in question is heterosexual.
I live in a small Italian village, one of those places where secrets don’t exists and your problems are everyone’s problems. The happy nuclear family a few houses down the road couldn’t conceive a child naturally because the husband is sterile. Not the end of the world these days. The Italian law allows IVF to heterosexual couples. The happy nuclear family simply picked a sperm donor, and a beautiful girl was born, she has her mother’s eyes.
The father on the birth certificate is not the donor, however the happy nuclear family didn’t receive a letter from the Italian government telling the husband that he is not the father of his child. No, it only happened to lesbian families in Italy.
So where is your truth now? Your biological reality. Aren’t we here to protect children and fight for reality? According to you this man shouldn’t have legal rights on the child his wife birthed. Or does it work differently because their family is approved by the church? Oh but this is different, he has a wife, he is heterosexual, he could have been fertile! Well, I could have been born male. To quote every mamma on the peninsula: if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.
The birth certificate is a legal document, not a biological fact. The law, unlike biology, IS a social construct and cannot dictate biological fact. That’s why there’s a push to enshrine gender identity into the law, because gender can never be a biological fact. Birth certificates are amended, for example, after adoption, to list the child’s legal parents. Not their genetic/biological parents, necessarily. So if a parent and step parent were the legal parents of a child, that child’s birth certificate would be amended after the step parent legally adopts the child, and the corresponding biological parent would be removed.
What this is, is an attack on lesbian families. On our fitness as potential parents, mothers, and responsible adults. I’ve personally had friends who had their children taken from them and given to unfit fathers in bad home environments, because the mother, who had been the custodial parent without issue, came out as a lesbian. Admittedly, I’m older than the usual tumblr userbase and my friends are older than me, so I had hoped that this sort of attitude was left in the past. But apparently not.
I want lesbians to be the parents of their children without the government or anyone else trying to get in their way. But isn't a birth certificate more about biology? It would be important for health reasons to know who the biological relative to the baby is, same with the baby's biological sex. Unless I am completely misunderstanding what a birth certificate is and maybe it's more of a government thing than I thought? Now that I think about it, I don't know what a birth certificate for a baby born to a parent and a step parent would look like either.
You are completely misunderstanding what a birth certificate is.A birth certificate is a LEGAL document designating parental rights.
A paternity DNA test is a medical document that shows someone’s genetic history.
A birth certificate is a legal document that a child will need every day of their life. A birth certificate designates who is legally responsible for a child’s life.
IF YOU PUT A MAN’S NAME ON A LESBIAN FAMILY’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU ARE GIVING HIM PARENTAL RIGHTS.
Whoever told you birth certificates are about ~biological reality~ is a lesbophobe.
My brother’s friend does not legally have a father. His mother did not give his biological father parental rights. She elected not to put his name on the birth certificate. She did not want her shitty ex-boyfriend to have any legal parental relationship with her son. That is her right as a woman.
“Gender critical feminists” want to take this right away from all women because they are blinded by their own lesbophobia.
Don’t just open the tab and leave it unread. Here, I’ll give you a short section to read right now:
The facts of biology are suddenly forgotten once the so called “non traditional” family is composed of a man and a woman. No government in any country is removing non-biological fathers from birth certificates, even though the man in the birth certificate has no biological relation to the child. On the contrary, most countries have pretty straightforward laws about the recognition of non-biological fathers as long as the couple in question is heterosexual.
I live in a small Italian village, one of those places where secrets don’t exists and your problems are everyone’s problems. The happy nuclear family a few houses down the road couldn’t conceive a child naturally because the husband is sterile. Not the end of the world these days. The Italian law allows IVF to heterosexual couples. The happy nuclear family simply picked a sperm donor, and a beautiful girl was born, she has her mother’s eyes.
The father on the birth certificate is not the donor, however the happy nuclear family didn’t receive a letter from the Italian government telling the husband that he is not the father of his child. No, it only happened to lesbian families in Italy.
So where is your truth now? Your biological reality. Aren’t we here to protect children and fight for reality? According to you this man shouldn’t have legal rights on the child his wife birthed. Or does it work differently because their family is approved by the church? Oh but this is different, he has a wife, he is heterosexual, he could have been fertile! Well, I could have been born male. To quote every mamma on the peninsula: if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.
The birth certificate is a legal document, not a biological fact. The law, unlike biology, IS a social construct and cannot dictate biological fact. That’s why there’s a push to enshrine gender identity into the law, because gender can never be a biological fact. Birth certificates are amended, for example, after adoption, to list the child’s legal parents. Not their genetic/biological parents, necessarily. So if a parent and step parent were the legal parents of a child, that child’s birth certificate would be amended after the step parent legally adopts the child, and the corresponding biological parent would be removed.
What this is, is an attack on lesbian families. On our fitness as potential parents, mothers, and responsible adults. I’ve personally had friends who had their children taken from them and given to unfit fathers in bad home environments, because the mother, who had been the custodial parent without issue, came out as a lesbian. Admittedly, I’m older than the usual tumblr userbase and my friends are older than me, so I had hoped that this sort of attitude was left in the past. But apparently not.
the hardest part of making a Discourse Post™ is that i don’t have the time or energy to respond to everyone who disagrees with my viewpoint. and even if i did, my followers would get annoyed with seeing the same post dozens of times with different additions. so just rest assured if you ever disagree with me 1) i already thought of that and 2) i have the best comeback ever
“Exclusion” and forms of the word are really all buzzwords now. You’re not entitled to everyone’s spaces. Is my home exclusionary? Yes, no outsiders unless I say so. Does that mean it’s bad? No, no it does not.
people also don’t seem to understand that in order to define a thing you must exclude other things. lesbian, for example only has a meaning if straight and bisexual are excluded from that category. otherwise everything would be everything and we wouldn’t have language.
whenever I see a woman with a baby, I always want to ask, how was the birth, how are you doing? and if I know the woman I will. everyone asks about the baby. ask about her
how come it’s all “what about infertile women” if you say being a woman means having a female reproductive system, but “birthing body” is fine???? i never intend to give birth, so what kind of “body” am i? why is my non-birthing body still the target of abortion laws? i’m not a body anyways. i’m a fucking person. i’m fucking tired of this nonsense. i truly have no patience for it. say female or shut the fuck up!!!!
would also like to throw out there that as much as they advocate for saying “people with uteruses” which is a bit less dehumanizing, this completely excludes the many women who have had hysterectomies, sometimes bc of illegal abortions/ectopic pregnancies etc. as if they dont have a right to speak on this. female people or women are the only two terms that make any sense
Without hyperbole government offices that take half an hour of waiting to get anywhere and close at 4pm are are a form of oppression against the working class
and is the woman who gets an abortion every time she has sex in the room with us right now?
“if we legalize abortion and make it accessible, loads of women’ll just get that shit done every month ESPECIALLY the one who have careers and can afford it !”
oh, so you agree that loads of women don’t want to be mothers? that maternal instinct is bullshit? that many of us don’t think babies are a gift? so if that’s the case then pregnancy is just a punishment for being sexually active while female? huh
“Irresponsible women will have loads of abortions!” so they should be forced to have loads of children instead?
So you agree that her male partner will continue to repeatedly impregnate her, despite knowing that she doesn’t want children? You agree that he prioritises his ejaculation over any negative consequences of pregnancy and/or abortion to his partner? Yet… her body is the one you want to place torturous legal restrictions upon?
a woman is not capable of using “reasonable” or equal force against a man. a man’s punch can be as deadly as a woman with a gun. a woman’s punch cannot.
domestic abuse self-defense should not have to be in the middle of a fight to be justified. if a woman is being abused to the point of fearing for her life, self-defense should include shooting him in his sleep.
and also, people say we use “he” as gender-neutral, but we really don’t. we use “he” as male, we just assume something is male over female because we view male as default.
“he” is very gendered. like when you see a random animal, people say “aw he’s so cute”. they’re not saying “aw gender-neutral animal is so cute” they’re saying “aw male animal is so cute”. we still view it as male, we just view male as neutral.
