candied-corpse:

mightyplegis:

Y’all know those studies were bunk right? People deliberately ignore that these studies didn’t specify romantic partners as the abusers in the surveys so it included any same sex living situation so that could mean parents, siblings, other family members, friends, roommates, etc. it was basically a perfect example of how not to do a survey and how a survey’s data can be misconstrued if the questions aren’t perfect. And you people took it and ran ignoring all that. But also:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf

Are we really gonna pretend that domestic violence shelters aren’t full of women beaten by their husbands and boyfriends?

communistroader:

Whoever sent this ask, I thank you, because you did catch minisoc in a moment of stupidity. Minisoc’s response to the question, should women have their legal sex-based protections overwritten? is, get this: you can’t trust the state to defend your rights! This is the galaxy brain take of a supposed Leninist. I’m not even going to dive into the classic Marxist-Leninist analysis of the state here because I don’t need to. Does anyone actually think that the law is only inconsequential window dressing? Is it all the same to women whether abortion is legal, but curtailed in sneaky ways as in the US, or outlawed altogether as in Ireland? Was it all the same to black people in America before and after Brown v. Board? The question was about the desirability of a specific law, gender identity recognition, not the patriarchal state in general. Fucking hell.

Two points have to be made absolutely clear:

1. The state enforces the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by way of its laws, which are determined at a given time and place by the state of the class struggle. In most core countries, a certain amount of protections for women are enshrined in law, thanks to fierce popular struggle. It matters what the character and scope of these laws are; whether the state decriminalises prostitution or institutes a sex-buyer law, for example.

2. ‘Acknowledging’ men as women lessens women’s ability to benefit from laws and protections tailored to women as a sex class. It results in women’s scholarships and women’s officer positions being given to ‘transwomen’ aka men. As was the point of the ask, you misogynist dipshit.

communistroader:

Whoever sent this ask, I thank you, because you did catch minisoc in a moment of stupidity. Minisoc’s response to the question, should women have their legal sex-based protections overwritten? is, get this: you can’t trust the state to defend your rights! This is the galaxy brain take of a supposed Leninist. I’m not even going to dive into the classic Marxist-Leninist analysis of the state here because I don’t need to. Does anyone actually think that the law is only inconsequential window dressing? Is it all the same to women whether abortion is legal, but curtailed in sneaky ways as in the US, or outlawed altogether as in Ireland? Was it all the same to black people in America before and after Brown v. Board? The question was about the desirability of a specific law, gender identity recognition, not the patriarchal state in general. Fucking hell.

Two points have to be made absolutely clear:

1. The state enforces the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by way of its laws, which are determined at a given time and place by the state of the class struggle. In most core countries, a certain amount of protections for women are enshrined in law, thanks to fierce popular struggle. It matters what the character and scope of these laws are; whether the state decriminalises prostitution or institutes a sex-buyer law, for example.

2. ‘Acknowledging’ men as women lessens women’s ability to benefit from laws and protections tailored to women as a sex class. It results in women’s scholarships and women’s officer positions being given to ‘transwomen’ aka men. As was the point of the ask, you misogynist dipshit.