i think much of the disagreements most people have with radical feminism and radical feminists stem from variations of understanding of terms.
the term, “woman,” and “man,” specifically, is regarded by the mainstream gender activists on tumblr to mean labels for identities, specifically one’s “gender identity,” whereas radical feminism sees them as nothing but biological markers to mean someone who is an “adult female human,” and an “adult male human,” respectively. to wrap one’s head around this, think of how a sexually mature male chicken is called a “rooster,” and a sexually mature female chicken, a “hen.” both terms don’t refer to social roles, exactly (i’m not sure what a male chicken’s “social role” would be), but to reproductive roles and sexual maturation. to reiterate, they don’t hold socially constructed meanings, nor are they seen as “identities” (which are socially constructed in nature); they are simply biological markers.
and i suppose this uncovers a large problem for us: that the culture of gender is so entrenched in society that we associate simple biological markers with certain social roles and representations.
i’m cis insofar as I’m not trans, but don’t you dare label me as “someone who is comfortable with/identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth” because I’m anything but comfortable with this
Is it even possible? The expectations for female gender are just bunch of double-binds, how could anyone possibly be comfortable with expectations that contradict each other???