jump to navigation

Decoding the FAAB/MAAB “Argument” February 12, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, radical concepts, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

transactivists and fun-fems seem to have a lot invested in this one, dont they?  this keeps coming up, and the pomos are absolutely hell-bent on denying that FAAB is a meaningful distinction.  even though there are actual criteria that define it, pomos insist that there shouldnt be.  that its not fair to distinguish FAAB from MAAB.  or at least, that the differences between FAAB and MAAB are irrelevant.  now why would this be?

admittedly, i am not a great chess-player. but luckily for me, the pomos arent playing chess.  i know a strategy when i smell one.  and i smell some strategizing here, big time.  (to the war room!)  obviously, the FAAB issue is a very important battle, and they’ve given that much away from the beginning, by spending inordinate amounts of time on it.  so, whats over that particular horizon that they want so badly?

if FAAB as a meaningful category were removed from the feminist game, what would be different?

well, one obvious result, if the pomos got what they wanted here, would be that in successfully rendering FAAB meaningless, then its opposite, MAAB, would also be rendered meaningless. being two-sides of the same nonexistent coin and all.  they never really mention MAAB by itself, or call attention to it at all, instead preferring to lash out at FAAB (by discounting the importance of girlhood for example) but i think its an omission of the glaring kind.  again, they arent so great at keeping secrets.  so the question that needs asking here is probably this: who would gain if MAAB were rendered meaningless?

lets explore!  first, a little (recycled) graphic:

this chart outlines how the FAAB/MAAB distinction is made, based on the presentation of a childs genitals at birth.  “girls” are pink (female assigned at birth) and “boys” are blue (male assigned at birth).

now, regarding “gender,” i always believed that the female gender (or FAAB, if you will) was a way to funnel girl-children into an oppressive female gender role, based on their assumed ability to become pregnant.  which lets face it, almost all FAABs are capable of, and most of them are actually impregnated at some point, worldwide.  almost all. 

BUT.  whats to be made of box #3?  its pink toooo!!!111!!1  here, we have obviously intersexed babies who are unable to reproduce as females, also being assigned-female-at-birth.  why?  and why are MAABs relegated to a mere one square, when males as a sexual class are always entitled to HAVE MOAR?  (i am sorry, but this one really sticks out at me.  MAABs are fucking obsessed with everything always being representative of them, MOAR.  so much so that if and when they are ever relegated to a corner, as this chart illustrates, i believe this indicates that there is something there worth exploring.  and particularly, as here, if they are trying to divert attention from it and onto something else, its roughly equivalent to about sixteen billion red flags).

what i am thinking at the moment is that FAAB itself, as a category, appears to represent all bodies that cannot cause female-specific harm to other people, in the way of pregnancy, medical-events and trauma-bonding, via PIV.  doesnt it?  not all FAAB bodies can *be* harmed this way (if they arent impregnable).  but NONE of the bodies represented by the FAAB distinction can cause female-specific harm.  no…that appears to be left up to the MAABs.  MAABs of course being non-impregnable (non-female) children, with enough of a dick to pass as male, as an adult.  because who would raise a child as a “boy” if it didnt even have a dick?  and on what basis exactly?

do we get it now?  when deciding whether a nonimpregnable child is MAAB/FAAB the only consideration appears to be whether theres enough of a dick there to be a threat.  YES = MAAB.  NO = FAAB.  the MAAB distinction literally turns on this: whether this person will pose a legitimate threat to women.

and every single MAAB alive was chosen as an oppressor of women, and groomed as one, because of his ability to cause female-specific harm.  based upon the appearance of his genitals, at birth.  the meaning of “gender” and the entire purpose of it is to funnel everyone into an oppressive female gender role, UNLESS they are likely able to cause female-specific harm.  then they are groomed for that, instead.

okay?  the ability to cause female-specific harm appears to be the main distinguishing characteristic of all human beings, under patriarchy.  it is THE main event.  its even more important than the ability to reproduce (this is why there are only 2 genders, but 3 sexes.  ah that pesky box #3!)  those who are able to cause female-specific harm are represented by MAAB.  everyone else, isnt.  this is not irrelevant.  far from it. 

so regarding the question, “if FAAB were removed from the feminist game, what would change?” the answer appears to be this: MAAB would also be removed from the game.  and with it, the fact that THE crucial line drawn in the sand for millenia has been based on the known dangers to women of the penis, and the creation of a master class based solely and demonstrably on the ability to cause female-specific harm, would become invisible.

it would signal the end of radical feminism, in other words.  it wouldnt be necessary, anymore.  and this is not a small thing.  not at all.  all of this also has very little to do with sparkly shirts, if it has anything to do with them at all.