The changelog shows that this section has been added sometime between Oct 30 (last version before Nov) and today. Some possibilities:

1. disinformation to discourage the movement. I find this most likely given that "Trans" did not appear anywhere in the original article until this was politicized in the US. The updates between versions inserted anti-trans language in multiple places throughout the article.
2. Or, if this is actually part of the SK movement, then I have not heard anything TERF related for the US movement. The US movement probably should rename or otherwise distinguish itself from that.

Either way, I do not think this should be a point to discredit the movement. It at minimum does not seem related to the US movement and IMO is likely some clever FUD attempt to undermine the movement before it gets traction.

Ffs, you can do 4b without being transphobic.

Just because some 4b assholes with a website have written a transphobic clause in their manifesto, doesn't mean they speak for all 4b followers.

Stop shitting all over this movement because you've found somebody in it with an awful take on an unrelated matter.

Not having sex or relationships with folk who can impregnate you is sensible when your country is about to ban abortion and restrict contraceptive access.

Media hyped bullshit.

But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.

its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks

I thought the idea of the US version was just to avoid republicans.

It's not like women turned out in droves for Harris either. Who's going to withhold from the women that dropped the ball?

This is eugenics propaganda. It is slightly hidden in a way of not using the blatant language of "superiority" and forcing it on people, but the base idea boils down to breeding traits such as higher intelligence into (or out of in this case) people like what is done (was attempted) with animals. This is eugenics. Please do not spread eugenics.

Eugenics does not work. There's a lot of information on the topic, but here's a 10-minute primer: https://youtu.be/kMBriCmiTu0

TL;DW Studies show genetics plays a very minor role in intelligence in humans with socioeconomic factors being the main driver. Eugenics may be able to breed certain traits in/out, but that results in the extreme detriment of others. Consider dog breeding and all the health issues breeds have who were bred for a handful of specific tasks/traits.

Men will lie, especially if they're trying to get your clothes off. So a single question isn't quite enough. Maybe a discussion about politics on relevant issues, for example.

"some issues" is a bit of an understatement

I'm not aware of the history of this movement. Could you please provide some context? I want to push against reactionary undertones I might come across

53% of white women voted for Trump, and they aren't going to join 4B. "Men" didn't elect Trump, a slight majority of America did. When you point a finger, three are pointing back...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

It's just more social media posturing. Making a spectacle out of something people have been doing out of necessity.

Look at me, I've turned isolation and alienation into a consumer fetish! Subscribe and learn all the amazing new techniques to commodify your labor and spend your wages. Compete to become the highest ranked lonely person!

It's a reference to an old Greek comedy called Lysistrata from 411 B.C. The gag was, in order to end the Peloponnesian war (460 B.C.), women colluded to refuse sex until the men come to their senses and stop the war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Peloponnesian_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

It's a protest of how in today's society, even if sex has exactly the same pro's, the cons fall much more heavily on women.

They don't say it's not without personal sacrifice.

The idea isn't for women who are already in relationships with partners who support women's rights. The idea is more, for single women, to refuse to start any relationship at all right now. Which honestly, in an era where basic women's healthcare is under attack, maybe starting a relationship right now isn't the best idea. Will your women's rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you're using is taken off the market due to conservatives? Or will they want to move to the pull-out method or just accept the risk of being pregnant?

If you're a single woman, honestly, right now, maybe staying single through these next four years isn't a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the actions or beliefs of a potential partner, and everything with the fact that being a woman in any straight sexual relationship when conservatives are ascendant simply has a lot of unavoidable risks with it. The religious crazies in power believe that the only veto a woman deserves over being pregnant is the choice to have sex or not. And they seek to take away any way for women to prevent getting pregnant besides not having sex. These Christian nationalists, who were just elected, believe that the only choice women have should be pregnancy risk or abstinence.

You need to have a reality check here. The United States federal government, and the majority of state governments, will be telling every woman of reproductive age, "be abstinent or risk pregnancy. Any other tool to prevent pregnancy is morally wrong."

The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before marriage. The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before they're ready to become a mothers. The people soon to be in charge of the government literally believe that the only just use of sex is pregnancy. And they rule accordingly.

In what universe would you expect this to not result in a complete collapse of pre-marital sexual opportunities for straight men? It's not about punishing men. It's not that you do or do not have the right views or beliefs, or that you are a good or bad person. It's simply that for women, in this world that is being created, having sex before marriage simply isn't safe.

Sexual liberation was possible only due to the availability of effective contraception, birth control, and abortion. If you turn the contraceptive landscape back a century, sexual norms will have to return there as well. You are NOT going to have a world where there's no access to contraceptives where women are still perfectly happy being in sexual relationships before marriage.

Men, I hope you're ready to put a ring on it. Otherwise, you ain't gettin' any. Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

I mean, it isnt like it is the job of women to sleep with men in order to prevent them from becoming incels, that would be essentially like victim blaming at a population level. Im also not really sure that it would do much: most women arent going to do this, so the impact on average men's dating prospects is much smaller than the total lack of dating for any women that actually go through with it, but nobody is seriously suggesting that doing so will turn them into something akin to incels.

I dont expect this would really help much, beyond the obvious personal benefit that not becoming pregnant in a state that is hostile to women's reproductive health would have, but incels were going to hate and complain about women regardless of the sexual habits of those women, so I dont see it really making things worse in that regard either.

MGTOW is mostly men who can't get laid. These women could get laid. Not the same.