Like if we acknowledge the pretty obvious fact that, regardless of your gender, having a uterus automatically puts you at a disadvantage in certain ways, that doesn't actually mean saying that NOT having a uterus gives you an automatic and equivalent advantage. If it did, there wouldn't be so many examples of marginalised women being given forced hysterectomies. Did those women become PRIVILEGED by that experience?? Are afab women born without uteruses PRIVILEGED by that?? No! And similarly, trans amab people are not automatically privileged by not having uteruses. They experience a different set of uterus-related gender problems.
Man, this goes off, I didn't even think of it this way but this makes so much sense and breaks down the nuance of it so so well
You have to draw the line somewhere. But the world does not divide neatly into "under-25s, who are oppressed with regards to age" and "over 25s, who are oppressors with regard to age".
This is semi-connected, but when I wanted to go to kink 101 munches for newbies about 10 years ago, I was told very firmly they were for under 25s, and I asked where the newbies went who were over the age of 25 and basically told the equivalent of 'suck it up and just go to a regular event.' Which, while paraphrased, felt weirdly ageist in the whole other direction (that we don't have a right to safe spaces, or to get specific welcome groups for us, and it made me think how additionally *hard* it might be for folks in their 50s/60s to enter these spaces as shy newbies and get this response too. It's a very 'well you missed your window' response, and makes me feel like I should pretend to have more practical experience than I do to "fit in" with my age group).
So yeah, those age parameters need to exist - especially to stop (generally) older cis male predators around younger folks. But it did highlight what happens when you rigidly place the people on either side of an arbitrary line into certain sides of an amorphous somewhat unreal dichotomy in the process.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Man, this goes off, I didn't even think of it this way but this makes so much sense and breaks down the nuance of it so so well
You have to draw the line somewhere. But the world does not divide neatly into "under-25s, who are oppressed with regards to age" and "over 25s, who are oppressors with regard to age".
This is semi-connected, but when I wanted to go to kink 101 munches for newbies about 10 years ago, I was told very firmly they were for under 25s, and I asked where the newbies went who were over the age of 25 and basically told the equivalent of 'suck it up and just go to a regular event.' Which, while paraphrased, felt weirdly ageist in the whole other direction (that we don't have a right to safe spaces, or to get specific welcome groups for us, and it made me think how additionally *hard* it might be for folks in their 50s/60s to enter these spaces as shy newbies and get this response too. It's a very 'well you missed your window' response, and makes me feel like I should pretend to have more practical experience than I do to "fit in" with my age group).
So yeah, those age parameters need to exist - especially to stop (generally) older cis male predators around younger folks. But it did highlight what happens when you rigidly place the people on either side of an arbitrary line into certain sides of an amorphous somewhat unreal dichotomy in the process.