#“administratively transsexual”

[communistkenobi]

the thing that is endlessly frustrating when discussing transgender issues in public is that the people arguing against you - and in this case I am specifically referring to ‘progressives’ or otherwise self-identified leftists - are speaking from a place of hegemony, something that they do not acknowledge, and even more fundamentally, they mistake that hegemony for objective truth. to say “sex is biological” is to reflect the beliefs of those in power, to reflect the status of sex assignment in both domestic and international law, in administration, in medicine, in the labour market, in public space, in civil society, in virtually all aspects of social and political life. if you don’t like what a random transsexual is saying about gender on television, on a blog, or in a classroom you can - and I mean this unironically - simply go outside and be reassured your beliefs are correct by every facet of society that exists around you. You are granted the privilege of not requiring evidence for your beliefs; the current configuration of the social world acts as a replacement.

in contrast, the statement “sex is socially constructed” is treated as an immediate disqualifier from all public discourse on gender and sex; to announce such a belief in public as a trans person is to demonstrate your fundamental insanity and sexual perversion. If I want to articulate a theory of my own social position in the world I am called a deranged lunatic. this is not because society is constructed around scientific, objective facts that the transsexual is refusing to accept, but that the very fact of transgenderism as a social position is a challenge to the seemingly objective world that exists around us. My transgenderism is a site of truth that is irreconcilable with the present configuration of a deeply gendered society, and the only two conclusions to this problem are to either change society or to make life impossible for a transgender subject. To continue to argue that “sex is biological,” even from a progressive position, is to argue in service of the latter position, because it is the central organising principle of not just transphobic policy but all policy regarding sex and gender. I have yet to hear or see any sensitivity to this basic political fact whenever this argument goes around. Perhaps the reason transgender people are so emotionally invested in the answer of what sex “really is” is because the answer structures the possibility of our own existence.

But this is still somehow not enough for the progressive! Hegemony is insufficient; they are insecure with even that level of intellectual reaffirmation, and will only be satisfied until the very last insane transgender sjw also agrees with the hegemonic viewpoint. only then will the public square finally be a rational space where ideas can flourish

[whereserpentswalk]

Please reblog this if you want your followers to know you're actually pro choice!

Remember that reproductive rights don't just mean the right to an abortion or other contraception. They mean the right to reproduce just as much. It's only really ever exclusively been the right not to reproduce for cishet, white, able bodied (especially able bodied) people.

When you hear someone talk about the poor having too many children or talking about overpopulation do you understand that that's an attack on reproductive rights (and also eugenics rhetoric)?

Do you consider the fact that many women have to have their reproductive organs surgically removed to be legally considered women an attack on reproductive rights? Do you consider it weird that this is what many democrats consider a "reasonable middle ground"?

Do you consider the fact that many neurodivergent people are put on medication that removes sexual function and essentially chemically castrates them, and most doctors don't see this as an issue (especially when the patient in question is afab) an attack on reproductive rights?

Do you consider the fact that people's wombs are being removed in the American concentration camps that continue to operate on American soil an attack on reproductive rights? (And have you thought about the concentration camps since it stopped being a talking point about an individual politician?)

If you do not understand attacks on the marginalized's right to reproduce as attacks on reproductive rights, than you do not get to call yourself pro choice. Your just pro abortions for privileged women.

[havenofcybele]

Some thoughts on feminism from a trans perspective

What has feminism done for trans people? This is, surprisingly, a question that isn’t often asked. But the answer is quite revealing: nothing, unless one wants to include negatives, in which case, a lot of bad things.

There’s an expectation for trans women that you’re supposed to be a feminist. So much as questioning feminism, or even expressing indifference to it, is frequently met by vitriol and hostility, typically expressed through misgendering, whether covert or overt. I’ve even had trans women say I deserve transphobia for not being a feminist. ‘Vitriol and hostility’ are really understatements of how tense other trans women can get when you don’t have the right opinion on this subject. The only possible outlet for criticism of feminism is criticism of TERFs, and transfeminists are extremely eager to point out that the TERFs are supposedly a minority, and hell, they’re probably not even real feminists anyway!

But again, my mind just returns to that question. What has feminism done for trans people? If you actually pose that to a transfeminist, they begin to stumble. They’ll stop talking to you, or they’ll deflect, or they’ll ignore the question and focus on something else you’ve said, or they’ll claim that somehow feminism laid the foundations for trans rights and that we don’t owe trans rights to the trans men and trans women who fought for them, or even to the researchers and surgeons who developed lifesaving transition-related care, but instead to activists who were fighting for unrelated concerns and who, by and large, were and are hostile to us.

What they’ll never do is actually name something substantive. I’m not saying individual feminists have never done anything substantive for trans people, but I can’t think of a single thing, and seemingly even transfeminists can’t either, otherwise they’d tell me. I can think of a large number of bad things feminists have and continue to do in regards to trans rights. Janice Raymond contributing to the removal of trans healthcare coverage under the Ronald Reagan administration of the United States, resulting almost certainly in the deaths of trans people, for example. Or the fact that gender recognition reform in the UK has been utterly derailed by feminists, or the fact that feminists have effectively destroyed youth transition resources in the UK. Or how about the time Sheila Jeffreys called trans people parasites to the Houses of Parliament? Feminists have been calling for the elimination of trans people since at least the second wave, constructing glossy looking pieces of academic tripe from The Transsexual Empire in 1979 to the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights in 2019. In my own homecountry, the people spearheading the anti-trans movement aren’t a bunch of far-right Handmaid’s Tale larpers, dreaming of a Gilead knock-off they hope to institute one day–they’re feminists.

Of course, I’m ready to hear the cry of ‘those are TERFs!’ or ‘those aren’t real feminists!’, well, where precisely are the real feminists? Again, what have feminists done that is good for trans people? Can you blame me for being antifeminist, when all the feminists I see having any influence on my life and the lives of my people, both now and in the past, are ones who want to eliminate us? At the very best, most feminists are utterly indifferent to trans issues, in which case, why should I support a movement indifferent to my suffering? At worst, most of them harbour transphobic viewpoints–not, perhaps, as toxic as your average TERF’s, but transphobic nonetheless, and such a conclusion is the one I lean to, considering how prevalent transphobic attitudes are in all areas of society, and my own anecdotal experiences.

What is interesting though, is that even if the correct choice is to support feminism despite its sordid history, the response to antifeminist or even just feminist-sceptical trans women is still insane. You think a movement which has been tarnished so badly by transphobia would be a little bit more understanding to those trans women who are reticent to interact with it, but instead all they receive is shaming, misgendering, and outright hostility. There aren’t even attempts to create dialogue around this issue, unless you first kiss the feminist ring and swear undying allegiance, in which case any dialogue you do attempt to make will be neutered from the start, set out entirely according to the terms of cis feminists. 

A retort might be that feminism means equal opportunity for women, or ending oppressive structures against women, or gender equality, or whatever else, and so the only reason you could be opposed to it is due to being a misogynist who hates women. This is a specious argument. Movements are defined by their members’ actions, goals, and political stances–not by a pithy, idealised definition which floats in a vacuum. Unless you transfeminists think that the only reason one might be opposed to MRAs is simply because one thinks men should have no rights?

In sum, I see no reason to support a movement that hates me and wants me gone, nor do I see any reason for my sisters to support it either. Antifeminism is the only path to true liberation for trans people, and I dream of the day most trans women shed this unhelpful ideology.

[mightyflamethrower]

Gay Teacher Fired for Opposing Transsexual Agenda

Some teachers are not on board with indoctrinating children into all things LGBT. Such teachers are driven out — even if they are homosexual themselves, like Ray Shelton:

Shelton, a 25-year veteran teacher, spoke at a Glendale Unified school board meeting amid concerns over the district’s promotion of LGBTQ+ curriculums to elementary students, including by an administrator stating that all children were naturally “socialist” and “queer,” The Daily Signal reported.

The district controls 25,000 students in Los Angeles County.

Shelton, who taught at Mark Keppel Elementary School, was named the Glendale school district’s “Teacher of the Year” twice, and earlier this year won the PTA’s Golden Oak Award.

But then he said this at the school board meeting:

Two plus two equals four. The world is not flat. Boys have penises; girls have vaginas. Gender is binary and cannot be changed. Biology is not bigotry. Heterosexuality is not hate. Gender confusion and gender delusion are deep psychological disorders. No caring professional or loving parent would ever support the chemical poisoning or surgical mutilation of a child’s genitalia. Transgender ideology is anti-gay, it is anti-woman, and it is anti-human. It wants to take away women’s sports, women’s rights, women’s achievements. It is misogyny writ large. And I can also say this as a gay man, the gay people …

That’s where they killed his mic. Such observations are not permitted in American schools under liberal rule.

Shelton was prevented from returning to his classroom and told not to set foot on school property unless accompanied by someone from human resources. He was of course fired.

Now here’s a guy who is a smoother fit with our education system.

Future scholars and educators will point at a month in the 21st century timeline and say ........"right there, that's where America lost its mind"

[awaywithillusions]

really exhausted with how paranoid the spectre of intentional, political misgendering makes me. i never know when someone will lash out at me for making the most polite or lighthearted correction. i have to act as if im hypervisible at all times. a living target. i hate how banal it all is. i live in one of the easiest states to change my name and gender marker but still i'd have to drop a third of my monthly income or more in total to get it done. and then there's the waiting, the explaining -- i will inevitably have to explain and reiterate the fact of my transsexualism in order to navigate the administrative-bureaucratic and customer service monoliths, to reanimate the corpse of who i was "supposed" to be. im so weary of having to justify myself in every waking moment. each successive time i explain who i am the hollower i feel. i want to set the regime of recognition on fucking fire

[deirdreskye]

I'm no longer on board with the whole "reclaiming transsexual" thing I actually think I liked it better when calling yourself a transsexual meant you were an out-of-touch Susan's hon who had to do 2 years of RLE during the Carter administration

[maaarine]

Hormones and their Interaction with the Pain Experience (Katy Vincent and Irene Tracey, 2008)

"One of the most striking physiological differences between men and women is in sex steroid hormones, both the absolute levels and the occurrence of cyclical fluctuations in women.

These hormones are known to be responsible for the embryological development of a male or female phenotype and for successful reproductive function after puberty.

More recently, observations such as the marked differences in pain symptoms between males and females in the period between puberty and the menopause, and the cyclical variations in many clinical pain symptoms in women have suggested that they may also have a role in altering the pain experience. (…)

With the onset of regular ovulation and menstruation, it can be seen that a number of clinical pain conditions show variation in symptom severity across the menstrual cycle.

Clearly the pain of dysmenorrhoea is, by definition, associated with the menstrual cycle, however, the symptoms of temperomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Interstitial Cystitis (IC) and migraine can also show cyclical variation.

The greatest reports of pain symptoms appear to occur at times of low or rapidly falling estrogen levels and the use of the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) to give a more constant hormonal level can improve these symptoms. (…)

From puberty onwards, men have significantly higher levels of testosterone and its metabolites than women.

Testosterone appears to have an analgesic effect protecting against the development of painful conditions such as TMJ pain.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients (both male and female) have been shown to have lower androgen levels than sex-matched controls, and androgen administration improves their symptoms, whilst female workers with lower testosterone levels have more work-related neck and shoulder injuries.

However, investigation of the specific effects of testosterone are complicated by the fact that much is metabolised in vivo to estradiol by aromatase, and this is therefore an issue which needs to be addressed in future studies.

Perhaps one of the more intriguing studies to be published recently explored the effect of systemic hormone administration to both male to female (MtF) and female to male (FtM) transsexuals (n=73) during the process of sex reassignment.

They observed that approximately one third of the MtF subjects developed chronic pain during their treatment with estrogen and androgens, and even those that did not, reported a decreased tolerance to painful events and an enhanced sensitivity to thermal stimuli (both warm and cold).

Of those FtM subjects who had chronic pain before the start of treatment, more than half improved after commencing testosterone treatment, reporting reduced numbers of painful episodes and shorter lengths of those that did occur.

Clearly, psychological effects cannot be ignored in this group of subjects, however, this is the only situation where the hormonal milieu in humans can be ethically altered to that of the opposite gender and therefore gives us interesting insights. (…)

In addition to its sensory aspect, pain is an emotional experience.

It is therefore of interest that the life time patterns in pain symptoms in men and women are closely mirrored by those of mood disorders, though with the addition of a perimenopausal peak in mood disorders.

Comparing post-puberty with pre-puberty, rates of significant depression increased two-fold for boys but more than four-fold for girls.

In Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMD), there is no evidence that abnormal levels of hormones occur (unlike in depression associated with thyroid or pituitary dysfunction), rather, it appears that some women are more sensitive to the mood destabilising effects of these hormones.

It is not inconceivable therefore, that a similar situation may exist for pain."

[r0semultiverse]

A message to the recent & future transgender pick-mes.

If you’re a trans pick-me (no matter where you align with gender) there’s a special place in Hell just for you & I don’t even believe in Hell. Having trauma isn’t excusing your actions of going out of your way to hurt other people actively. It explains that it comes from a place of hurt potentially or you’re just turning into a rage-bait influencer because it makes you money. Either way you come after trans people who don’t do being trans exactly like you so they “aren’t really trans.” You get a taste of the right-wing rage-bait money pot & you wanna keep going because money & maybe some weird part of you thinks this will save you from transphobic attacks? Honey, we’re all just fags to them no matter how we look or act. Even if you’re a cis person not following the norm or unaware of the politics of it all, you’re still just a faggot to them who they will eventually want to snuff out. I’m saying this as a tranny fag just to be clear! You can’t be playing these exclusion games & thinking it’s going to make you powerful! Even Milo Yionnapolis or whatever that fucker’s name was got dropped by the Trump Administration! They do not like us & they never will like us! Democrat, republican, whatever it is; if it’s capitalist, it doesn’t like us! No matter how much you lick those boots, it’ll do you no good. You’re a faggot/tranny just like me & the rest of us, that’s how these suits see it & always will see it no matter how much you try to prove “I’m one of the good ones.” They aren’t going to save you, we’re all on the chopping block to them no matter what our politics are. These government folks don’t see any of us as “one of the good ones.” Get over yourself, grow the fuck up, and stand side-by-side with your transsexual siblings! All we have is each other, these cis people aren’t shit! 💜 Down with cis! 💜

[dailyanarchistposts]

Institutional dynamics of control

Production of cisnormative narratives

While transsexuality is institutionalized by taking trans people as incapable of self-determination, cisgenderity is institutionalized as being part of “human nature”. A certain authority model is constructed — the cis, straight, white man — to the detriment of which trans epistemologies are delegitimized. This particular model is not only present in hospitals and clinics, but within non-institutional environments as well. Violence does not only exist inside institutions. There are differences between the imposing forces of the State and those of society (BAKUNIN, 2021). State authority is violent, imperative and formalized, it operates through institutionalized mechanisms and uses legal and bureaucratic methods; the authority of society, based on culture, is even stronger, since even though it does not rely completely on institutions, it permeates social relations. That does not mean that both forces don’t feed off each other. What we see in relation to transsexuality is the production of a violent and exclusionary norm, imposed culturally and institutionally.

There are larger forces behind the walls of institutions which reinforce exclusion, discrimination and violence against trans people; which [re]produce the delegitimization of trans identities and defend the cisheteronorm; which take away the ability of trans people to assert themselves. When institutional forces act in favor of these factors, it becomes almost impractical to imagine emancipation without also considering the abolition of the State, of the sacredness of its laws and orders, and of the institutions considered necessary for the organization of a society.

These dynamics of power must be analyzed more closely. Guattari and Rolnik (1996) propose two ways of conceiving groupings: there are subject groups, creators and administrators of the law, who are clearly the protagonists of their narratives; and there are subjected groups, submitted to the laws of the subject groups. While the former produce the laws that privilege them, the latter are subjected to them and justify them. For example, the idea that trans people are unable to speak for themselves instantly reflects the ability of cis people to not only produce their own narratives, thinking only in terms of cisgenderity, but also to produce ours — in the sense that cisgender narratives about trans people are created before we even begin to situate ourselves socially.

When we enter a general hospital, our bodies change. The questions “Should I say I’m trans? Should I introduce myself with my civil or social name? Should I pretend I’m cis? Should I say I’m hormonized?” hover like hammers that measure “How far can I go? How far would you let me go?”. Because there is a pre-discursivity (VERGUEIRO, 2016) in operation, something that establishes who we are before we can even present our demands. We are determined before we are able to speak, and when we believe we have acquired the capacity for self-determination, we find ourselves immersed in narratives from which we are not allowed to stray: the criteria for classifying transsexuality shape the criteria for determining citizenship, once, in order to be able to access healthcare, rectify one’s name and gender in civil registration, and enter the formal labor scene, one must pass through the yoke of authorities who carry the same pathologizing perspectives shared by both Benjamin and Stoller.

Until 2018, for instance, changes to the civil registry had to be made through a judicial process in Brazil. The success of the cases depended on the approval of a judge, who required proof that the applicant was a “real” trans person. In other words, the applicants had to present psychological and psychiatric reports, evidence that they had undergone surgery or intended to do so — in most cases, surgery was a determining factor -, witnesses who could prove that the person had been trans for more than two years, photographs in which the person was dressing and behaving in a way that was socially consistent with their gender identity (in other words, in a cisheteronormative way). The trans individual should construct an entire life narrative to prove their transsexuality. With narratives, we are not limited to the level of diagnoses, to what we write and say about ourselves, but we encompass our bodily construction, since it is not only our discourse, but our social coding that legitimizes or not our belonging to the sphere of masculinity or femininity. The two major systems of hierarchical domination in capitalist societies that Santos identifies can be found in these dynamics: the systems of inequality reflect the near absence of trans people in the formal labor scene, which pushes them into the informal sector, almost always into prostitution; while the systems of exclusion reflect the invisibilization, historical erasure and expulsion of trans people from the dynamics of social determination and political organization. A body that is both subalternized and excluded cannot be free.

Considering, for example, that having their documents rectified represents the possibility of coming and going with their name, a trans person’s “freedom” is not determined by themselves, as it should be, but is decreed by a third-party authority over which they have no ability to interfere. Defending freedom is not compatible with defending government institutions, as it opposes the relationship between governors and governed. When the judicial system denies a person the right to have their name recognized by the State, it is denying that this person exists, delegitimizing their identity, and confirming the main characteristic of the State — to liquidate the “other”.

It is evident, in this way, that culture imposes itself on us, the social organism shapes us according to its own structuring laws. We are born with only our motor, sensory and psychological capacities, devoid of innate notions about how the world functions. The notions we acquire about what should or shouldn’t be performed, reproduced or desired are introjected into us by the environment in which we live, and our future positions are built around these notions, regardless of being contrary to them (BAKUNIN, 2021). Our bodies are not something given a priori, for the concept of a body does not only encompass the arrangement of tissues, organs and biological structures: it extends to all the historical, territorial, political and economic meanings it holds. For Letícia Lanz (2014), the body is the manifest materiality of a gendered society and is therefore the target of cisheterosexual hegemony, be it to the detriment of clothing, behavior or aesthetics.

Rodovalho (2016, p. 25) adds: “[trans people] know that they are first and foremost their bodies. They know that society won’t let them forget this at any time”, insofar as the body “is always something that has to do with the mode of insertion into the dominant subjectivity” (GUATTARI; ROLNIK, 1996, p. 278–279). Subjected bodies are produced for the margins, for not being able to self-determine, to build their own territories.

The terms ‘trans’ and ‘cis’, in the context of gender identities, appeared at different historical moments: the former emerged in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1950s that transsexuality gained notoriety in scientific circles, while the latter only appeared seventy years after the appearance of the antonym that gave rise to it. According to Rodovalho (2017, p. 366),

[cisgender people] use the word “trans” all the time, the same people who refuse to use “cis”, and they use it because they believe it says something, even if we don’t know exactly what. They use it because they believe we exist and they are no longer capable of not seeing us, of not recognizing us in the crowd.

Cisgenderity rejects its own naming as it compulsorily names that which does not reflect itself, and epistemologically invents transsexuality over the incapacity for self-determination and social exclusion, all of which are expressed in the processes of culpability, infantilization and segregation demonstrated by Guattari and Rolnik (1996).

Culpability functions through the formation of a dominant image, a standard of reference that ought to reflect our own. Be it based on religion or science, guilt inevitably produces violence. The academy that produces knowledge based on cisgender normativity is the same academy that works towards a segregated social organization that puts the “blame” on trans people. It is something that Santos refers to as a crisis of hegemony, concerning the university as the only institution capable of producing scientific knowledge. There can be no democratization of knowledge if the only legitimized knowledge is the one that originates institutionally.

How many trans people have historically produced knowledge about themselves? And if they have, to what extent has this knowledge been decisive in the elaboration of ICDs, DSMs and SOCs, as well as in the drafting of any regulation on transsexuality? If we are unable to say who we are, how would we be able to produce science about ourselves? Scientific knowledge operates for its own protection, behind the institutional walls that guarantee its tyranny, because “that which is true of scientific academies is also true of all constituent and legislative assemblies” (BAKUNIN, 2009, p. 18).

One cannot situate the production of trans subjectivities solely on dichotomous individual or social levels, as these are in no way separate; there is no point in centralizing subjectivity in the individual, since it “is essentially fabricated and shaped in the social register” (GUATTARI; ROLNIK, 1996, p. 31). Therefore, the making of this cisgendered trans subjectivity, of the social imaginaries of dysphoria, dangerousness and marginalization of trans people, is closely connected to the exercise of hegemony, of legitimized knowledge. Faced with the creation of a dominant image, processes of identification and disidentification arise: who am I in that image? What does this distance produce? This reference model is not limited to aesthetic ideals and socialization, but to the level of humanity. We don’t just think about segregation on a geographical level; we think about social exclusion, unemployment rates in certain social groups and the targeting of State violence; who do they target, if not the bodies that are distant from the reference of humanity?

In short, segregation is reflected in the indicators of violence, employability, schooling and the marginalization of trans people — for whom opportunities in the formal labor scenario are rare. Culpability is interspersed in medical discourses that demand from our narratives stories of self-hate, born-in-the-wrong-body and farce. The search for the benjaminian “real transsexual” has spread to such an extent in medicine that they not only want someone who is ‘really’ trans, but someone who, as well as being trans, hates being trans as a requirement for being trans. As much as we mold our behavior to a coerced heteronormativity, as much as we internalize signs and symbols of cisnormativity, we will never be cis; therefore, we will never be part of the dominant elites (GUATTARI; ROLNIK, 1996).

The practice of infantilization, on the other hand, deprives us of the possibility of self-determination, placing us in a position of tutelage. Infantilization is the driving force behind tutelage, something similar to intellectual oppression, so criticized by Bakunin as an oppression from which one cannot evade easily. One either has the knowledge or not, and what decides who has it or not is an established power, as is what decides whether an individual is transsexual or not. Among the mechanisms of subjected subjectivities — culpability, infantilization and segregation -, we find infantilization to be something that should be further explored in the context of transsexuality, in the sphere of pathologization.

[thatfeyboy]

Hey guys, what do you think of the high rate of PCOS in trans men pre transition? It's not something I see talked about much, but I feel it's one of the few leads we have on contributing factors to dysphoria.

I have some sources to give, but basically it boils down to the knowledge that PCOS is likely caused by high androgen levels pre birth(as well as genetics/epigenetics), and the change it makes is to the brain's neurological structure, which in turn impacts the ovaries and hormone production. Since there is a significant amount more trans men that have this condition as compared to the base line, id assume whatever usually impacts the brain to cause masculinizing dysphoria shares features with the cause of PCOS.

Anyway, links below:

There are more studies like this one, but most don't have super huge sample sizes. Even so, I haven't seen one where trans men's rate of PCOS was equivalent to the base line.

This one also has a lot more links below it, as it's more an analysis of several works

And this one talks about the neurology aspect a bit more in general

[mogai-headcanons]

Scout from Team Fortress 2 is a butch bisexual trans lesboyconnec man with ADHD and OCD who uses he/him pronouns, and he's dating Sniper, Miss Pauling, Pyro, Engineer, and Demo!

Demoman is an autistic unlabeled bear who uses he/him pronouns, and he's dating Soldier, Scout, and Sniper!

Sniper is an autistic bi gay man who uses he/him pronouns and doesn't mind they/them, and he's dating Scout, Medic, and Demo and has a crush on Saxton!

Soldier is a neurodivergent butch abrosexual sapphilean bisexual transsexual pangender man with traumatic memory loss who uses he/him and occasionally she/her pronouns, and he's dating Demo and Spy, married to Zhanna, and in a relationship with Merasmus!

Spy is a straight bisexual turihet transfeminine bigender genderfluid femmefluid marfluid man who uses he/him and she/her pronouns in English and il/lui, elle/elles, and iel/ellui in French, and he's married to Scout's mom and dating Engineer and Soldier!

Heavy is a gay bear who uses he/him pronouns, and he's married to Medic!

Engineer is a disabled queerplatonic aromantic alloaro queer bisexual man who uses he/him pronouns and doesn't mind they/them from friends, and he's in a QPR with Pyro and dating Spy and Scout!

Pyro is an autistic schizophrenic queerplatonic aroaceflux trixic pan abroromantic voidsexual gaybian transfeminine pangender demiboy xenine genderfluid agender panxenogender firething girlboything with ADHD and OCPD who uses all pronouns and prefers it/its, they/them, she/her, and xe/xem, and xe's dating Scout and Miss Pauling and in a QPR with Engineer!

Medic is an autistic gay man who uses he/him pronouns, and he's married to Heavy and dating Sniper!

Miss Pauling is an autistic bisexual genderqueer woman with a preference for woman who uses she/her and occasionally they/them pronouns, and she's dating Scout, Pyro, and Zhanna and has a crush on the Administrator!

Zhanna is a femme aromantic woman who uses she/her pronouns, and she's married to Soldier and dating Miss Pauling!

The Administrator is an aromantic bisexual lesbian who uses she/her and it/its pronouns, and it's in a relationship with Scout's mom!

Scout's mom is a bisexual woman who uses she/her pronouns, and she's married to Spy and in a relationship with the Administrator!

Saxton Hale is a bisexual man who uses he/him pronuons, and he's in a relationship with Mr. Bidwell and married to Maggie!

Mr. Bidwell is a trans gay man who uses he/him pronouns, and he's in a relationship with Saxton!

Maggie is a biromantic woman who uses she/her pronouns, and she's married to Saxton!

Merasmus is an aromantic mspec pangender demifluid perosn who uses they/them and it/its pronouns, and it's in a relationship with Soldier!

dni link

[magicspeedwagon7]

“Dworkin said gender is a fiction (cf Right Eing Women, 1983) so that means she’s a queer icon actually 😍 “ is the most unserious take I’ve ever read.

It’s specifically because she thinks gender is a fiction that she thinks trans people are “duped by gender” as Bernice Hausmann would put it. victims of transsexualism.

I don’t care if she believes deep down in her heart that she loves trans people because in her ideal world gender is abolished in the sense that gender identity is neutralised and all of us are androgynous beings. That’s a world in which trans people don’t and must importantly shouldn’t exist.

When she writes anti-porn legislation (for the Reagan administration by the way (cf Meese Report)) w her bestie McKinnon she thinks of trans women as a third gender that suffers from misdirected misogyny more than anything and that’s the reason why she pities trans women a little bit. But that’s it really…

In general, you have to understand that “gender abolition” can be a terf project: especially if like Carole Pateman (known for The Sexual Contract and critique of liberal democracy in general) we think of gender as only an oppressive fiction and, then, (binary) sex is the only thing that matters.

[aresmarked]

'Policy proposals addressed items like opposing federal net zero by 2035 measures, encouraging increased nitrogen production for use in domestic farm fertilizers, reining in electricity costs through mechanisms like the now-defunct Power Purchase Agreement, continued indexing of social supports like AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped) and seniors benefits to inflation, and even the repealing of no fault insurance that was put in by the previous UCP government.

Solar farms, supervised consumption sites, and professional associations also were addressed by the policy proposals.

Other proposals wandered into realms of conspiracy theories like preventing digital currencies eliminating cash, “15-minute cities,” enshrining “the right to keep arms” in provincial law, requiring “a facility for transsexual female inmates” as a measure of preventing “sexual predatory behaviours,” and preventing books that include certain content in school libraries.

...

One policy proposal from the Calgary-Lougheed riding calls for allowing doctors to prescribe off-label medications, a response to the Alberta College of Physicians “interfering” by prohibiting the use of off-label drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.

Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, was advocated in some circles for the treatment of COVID, a practice the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns against. Hydroxycholoroquine, usually used to treat autoimmune diseases like arthritis, was also presented in some circles as a treatment for COVID early in the pandemic, but studies found the drug did not reduce mortality or the need for or use of ventilators.

One proposal from the Banff-Kananaskis CA seeks to ban the use of electronic tabulation machines....

In Alberta, votes are cast on paper ballots which are then scanned by tabulation machines and the paper ballots are kept for recount purposes.

Another Banff-Kananaskis proposal seeks to eliminate all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices at post-secondary institutions for penalty of losing government funding.

And a proposal from the Innisfail-Sylvan Lake CA wants to ban the use of “race as a factor in any (post-secondary) admissions program or procedure.”

Williams said some of the policy proposals appear to come from “imagining a problem” and proposing a solution, and some proposals make broad assumptions.

“For example, with respect to gender pronouns, making assumptions about what’s happening in schools, in classrooms, and proposing a solution without any really clear evidence of whether these were the problem. And that can actually create problems for the party and for the government.”'

dont you loooove canadian conservatives pulling from the us far-right handbook

[guitarhappyman]

Once you understand that transsexuals are the very first political subclass whose identity is 100% manufactured and administered by branches of the state apparatus, all policy involving them and their desires suddenly makes perfect sense.

Trannies are the perfect client class of the elite. All aspects of their identity are literal commodities of the therapeutic administration. There is nothing about them or the expression of their identity that is natural. All of the accoutrements of the transsexual identity are sensationalized, advertized, and provided (read: for profit) by pharmaceutical institutes, sociological experts, and managerial psychologists, along with all of the bureaucratic state agencies built around these structures to maintain and execute their functions.

However, the problem is that trannies cannot proliferate themselves as a class through natural means. Transsexuals cannot exist as a source of political and economic influence without the explicit permission and provision of the administrative state, and in providing access to the services that transsexuals demand, the administration simultaneously manipulates and organizes the very features that define the transsexual class. THAT is why the predation of children is a greater imperative for transsexuals than any other client class of the state. By forcibly polluting children with transsexual propaganda, the elite are guaranteeing the contiguity of a class that is completely and totally dependent on the therapeutic administration, as well as weakening the identitarian sects that see themselves as largely independent from managerial discipline or welfare. If you are baffled as to why/how the political force of trans activism has advanced with an alacrity unimaginable for any other civil rights group in history, this is why.

[beardedmrbean]

The founder of a satanic church who lost a run for sheriff in 2020 as a Republican was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 18 months in prison Tuesday for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.

Aria DiMezzo, of Keene, a 35-year-old self-described satanist, was also ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 and to forfeit more than $14,000 along with 1.93 bitcoins, currently worth about $55,000.

Between June 2020 and January 2021, DiMezzo charged a fee to exchange mostly U.S. dollars for bitcoin or other virtual currency, recruiting customers on websites, according to investigators. They said customers sent her money through bank accounts in her name and in the name of an organization she created, the Reformed Satanic Church.

'TRANSSEXUAL SATANIST ANARCHIST' WINS GOP NOMINATION FOR SHERIFF IN NH COUNTY

DiMezzo sold more than $3 million worth of virtual currency, did not register her operation as a money transmitting business and failed to comply with required regulations, according to prosecutors.

For example, according to investigators, DiMezzo never filed currency transaction reports for exchanges of over $10,000 or suspicious activity reports for transactions over $2,000 that may have involved funds derived from illegal activity.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS QUIETLY PLANNING FOR A FUTURE WHERE YOU DON’T OWN MONEY

Prosecutors also said she worked with a man named Ian Freeman to sell virtual currency to customers that he recruited, paying Freeman a percentage of the profits.

A federal jury found Freeman guilty of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, tax evasion and laundering over $10 million in proceeds of romance scams and other internet frauds.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 17.

[punk-pins]

had a really bizarre experience today. cw political conspiracy theories and the racism/antisemitism/islamophobia that entails + homophobia/transphobia. long post, kind of rambling, it’s almost 3am, might delete later.

long story short I was in a situation where I was in a gathering of 4 adult (40s-60s), white, moderately wealthy trump republicans. one of which was my father, a woman who is an acquaintance of my father, and the other two were a couple. my father is a trump republican from the economically conservative side– he’s not on twitter, he like watching the stock market ticker on fox news, he likes the idea of trump as a political outsider. (our relationship is strained for it, and we avoid discussing it.) the woman was a trump republican from the side of so-called culture war– she expresses her views online, she thinks the american youth are devolved from her generation, her husband is a retired police officer so she has a lot of opinions about racism in america.

so obviously this group got to talking politics. this was not a conversation I wanted to participate in, but they were adamant they wanted my participation in it, and I wasn’t in a place where I could leave or refuse without causing larger issues. I was calm, I was safe enough to disclose my views come from being a lesbian, and in general I tried to respond as neutrally as possible.

the woman in particular told me directly, multiple times, how I only hold my opinions because I’ve been indoctrinated. she said “indoctrinated” so many times, it was just absolutely bizarre to say that to someone’s face. she repeatedly interjected that she wanted me to feel safe to share my opinions with her, that she didn’t want me to feel ganged up on, while insisting I wasn’t at fault for anything I said because I was indoctrinated.

in this conversation, I was asked if I believed in the “lgbtqia,” because “there are gay people who don’t believe in it, you don’t have to join,” as if it’s an organization. someone offhandedly mentioned “the transsexual issue.” they discussed a conspiracy theory that obama could have destroyed all racism in america in 2008, but instead allowed an islamic brotherhood to come into the white house take over all foreign policy. that obama still controls the current biden administration as a puppet master. they held a firm belief that the younger generation dislikes capitalism from pure laziness and entitlement.

when I said a lot of younger people don’t see themselves settling into economically conservative views with age because they don’t see the opportunities to gain wealth afforded to previous generations, the couple proudly told me about how they earned everything they had by working through college and getting good jobs. in the same breath, they also told me their daughter (my age) had never worked a day because of her indoctrination, and will be graduating college with what’s basically a mortgage in debt. I said exactly, you were able to pay your way through college and enter the workforce, but that’s impossible for your daughter to do because of increased cost + stagnating wages, plus her degree is now a requirement for entry level corporate work, not a bonus, so she will have a harder time accumulating wealth. they laughed it off because they’re convinced the situation is a moral failing on their daughter’s part, and doesn’t reflect on american economics or their parenting at all.

when it came to gay indoctrination in schools, I said well a hundred years ago left handed students were beaten for not using their right hand, and so all students were right handed. a decrease in anti-gay violence allows more students to express and experiment with how they want to be. it’s not that there’s an explosion of gay people since you were in school, they just weren’t safe to come out before. that bit sort of got through a little, but they were insistent that are “new identities” being pushed onto kids, and how could anyone ever want to be anything but straight? I would’ve lost my shit if we really got into it on these ones, but thankfully the topics shifted.

it was just one bizarre “why would you ever say this to another person in real life?” moment after the next. like are you willfully stupid or do you actually think your generation solved all problems in the world when you decided to settle down, and now everything else is extraneous nonsense made to make you look bad? do you really think your sheltered opinions matter on intercommunity issues? do you not understand how insane and rude and entitled you sound? I never expected or desired to change any of these people’s minds on anything, I was just trying to get through the interaction walking the tightrope of asserting myself so I wouldn’t hate myself after and not devolving into argument that would be counterproductive to the bigger situation going on.

the interesting thing is though, my dad didn’t say a word throughout the entire discussion. I know he agreed with them on a lot of points, but he never spoke against them, or to defend me from pointed comments made towards me. and after, when he was apologizing that it got political, he said he didn’t say anything because he was hoping they would stop. he didn’t try to change the topic, he didn’t speak up for me, he just let it happen, and apologized that it “wasn’t a safe space” for me after. and I think that’s really telling about trump republicans in general. his disapproval was entirely silent because he was not willing to speak against the others on any particular point, even the insane shit, even when it was hurting someone he loved directly in front of him, because that would destroy his credibility in the eyes of the other trump republicans. it really is a fascist fucking movement.