Thank you for your service o7 I'm watching this first thing after work.

I didn't say that the big text is what makes it correct. I used big text because Hexbears have really dropped the ball on this subject matter before, so I want to get it clear and out of the way before any of that furthers in this thread. It really has been one of the greatest demonstrations of just how damn mayo this site can be.

If patriarchy exists then the oppressed genders must organize and strike at how it is reproduced (eg. heterosexuality, the sexing of bodies).

Heterosexuality is not what keeps patriarchy in existence! What the hell? Yes, heteronormativity works hand-in-hand with patriarchy to reinforce queerphobic practices, but that does not mean that heterosexuality itself is a driving factor of patriarchy's existence. Furthermore, even if you wanted to assert this, it seems like you're advocating for political lesbianism, which is a homophobic tendency that takes away the validity of lesbianism as an identity and more as just some radical political choice to stick a finger to patriarchy. Please understand that sexual orientation is not a choice, and a lot of political lesbianism was at its peak when people did not really grasp this all too well. It also seems to inadvertently imply that women who are straight and are not celibate are acting against their own interests due to a systemic matter that would be fixed with men being better educated through legitimate feminist tactics.

Also, why would you think that a movement that has its very existence predicated on bioessentialism is trying to oppose the sexing of bodies? As I've already stated, I really think you are assuming a lot of good faith from these people. You seem to believe that these feminists are doing these strikes of celibacy as some very effective, tactical way to tear down patriarchal institutions, but it is rooted in bioessentialism, full stop.

Was the formation of the USSR "proletarian separatism" or one of many battles in the liberation of oppressed peoples around the world in the fight to destroy class society?

This is quite the false equivalence. Forming a dictatorship of the proletariat to seize the state machinery and turn it around to favor proletarian interests is not the same as taking essentialism, a tool of patriarchy, and using it to fight patriarchy. Also, men and women interact with one another and socialize every single day on an individual level, but the dirty abuses of the bourgeoisie primarily happen institutionally.

If you truly believe that any form of separation of the oppressed and oppressor is a form of a liberatory act, then that means you think that having black people start a separatist movement to distance themselves from all non-black people would work well in their favor. It wouldn't, as damaging as colonialism and white supremacy have been. The reason why it wouldn't is that the material conditions of today would not permit that as being a feasible path to ending white supremacy and its impact. Similarly, the material conditions of today also mean that patriarchy would not be best ended by taking the systemic matter that it is and trying to use an individual approach of rejecting male supremacy in day-to-day life. It's also very confusing as to how trans people and non-binary people will even factor into all of this, which is why female separatism only makes sense in a bioessentialist context.

4B is a potentially useful strategy to overthrow male supremacy, but if the feminists organizing it don't have that as an end goal then yes it'll just be failed female separatism, or feminism in one household to continue the analogy.

I struggle to see how a female separatist movement could be organized in a way that wouldn't let essentialism fall through the cracks, even if you tried to have a team of "based female separatists who aren't into that shit" lead the strategy. It is also confusing as to how male feminists would factor into this as well. If you separate the oppressor class from supporting a movement for liberating the oppressed, then that is undoubtedly a losing tactic, as it doesn't enable the most effective path to educating those in the oppressor class.

The issue with TERFs is they completely renounce the social construction of sex from radical feminist theory which makes their theories of liberation half-baked at best (eg. 4B but completely ceding ground to bodily autonomy because fuck the transgenders) and self-destructive at worst (believing half the human population is and always will be in control over the other half; just complete fatalism).

Female separatism, by placing such a big emphasis on distancing the feminist movement from men, already does this. It renounces the social construction of sex by assuming that men are innately evil to a point in which that male privilege, in the context of female separatism, is trying to be handled on an individual level rather than a systemic level at this point.

Also, I want to address the racist elephant in the room. Womanists have criticized female separatist tendencies since the 80s. Why did they do this? Well, these tendencies hurt black men, and as people who are marginalized on the basis of race, black women have found solidarity in being in communion with racial communities that would include people of all genders. The fact that womanists have had to break away from mainstream feminism over this in and of itself demonstrates the non-intersectional nature of this suggestion.

And last of all, as I already stated, 4B is not as common in South Korea as cringy white women on TikTok would lead you to believe. This is such a losing tactic and an idea that is horribly undialectical, so it's no shock that only a few people partake in it.

YESSSS

gender essentialism but based

Even this phrase being used mockingly really got me like

Bravo!