#(biological gender = sex)

[bullshit-tqia]

What's your solution for trans people? Genuinely wondering if you think we should be forced into some sort of conversion therapy or even forcibly detransitioned. Genuinely, I have never received a real answer from people like you on what you think should be done to people like me.

Things I want:

1. A total ban on over the counter sale of testosterone and estrogen, with strict enforcement and watch over illegal imports of HRT. All prescriptions of HRT can only be given to people with actual physical health issues, such as men with low T or women entering menopause.

2. Government investigations into organizations like WPATH and large institutional hospitals like the pediatric center in Texas that continues to give HRT to children despite the ban, including audits - to determine whether these organizations were aware of the harm they were doing and continued to finance these programs that were slowly killing hundreds of people, especially children.

3. Have a third party investigate the FDC & FDA, as they are being careless and allowing these surgeries to continue despite them not being verified as safe to preform on the opposite sex, and prosecute the ones who were negligent

4. Complete seizure of all medical licenses of doctors and surgeons who have had multiple lawsuits against them by past patients who they butchered and abandoned, as many have died due to surgical complications that these surgeons refused to treat, and investigations into the causes of deaths of patients who died shortly after having these surgeries, in order to verify whether they died from these surgeries or not

After all, there’s been about 6 studies that have come out within the past 8 months demonstrating that surgeries and HRT actually increases depression, anxiety, and suicide rates in transgender people. All these studies do not think oppression is a sufficient enough explanation of the phenomenon, because it is a continuous pattern that does not shift according to the amount of acceptance of transgender people in each nation. Basically, in high acceptance countries, the rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide are still high despite widespread support.

So I don’t consider it as “conversion therapy” or anything, I think of it as saving your life. Shocking, right? Isn’t it shocking that I genuinely care for your health and don’t want you to be abused by a corrupt medical system ran by lobbyists?

[ladyofspoons]

of course you have a blue kanohi and pronouns

[poison-doll]

the cool thing about being a trans woman that ive realized recently is that i, and other trans women like me, am actually completely female and have as much claim to that biological definition as any other female.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Emily Yoffe

Published: Jan 20, 2025

Toward the end of the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s campaign released an unexpected ad, and one that was extremely politically effective. The tagline—“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”—could go down in history as one of the most effective campaign slogans ever devised.

The ad reinforced a promise Trump repeated at rally after rally as he toured the swing states: If returned to office, he would immediately take on the gender ideology the Biden administration had embraced. Namely, he would end policies such as allowing males on women’s sports teams and in women’s locker rooms, and the housing of male prisoners who identify as transwomen in federal prisons for female offenders.

President Trump has addressed all this and more in an expansive executive order he will sign tomorrow afternoon called “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

Here is what the order sets out:

The Executive Order establishes Government-wide the biological reality of two sexes and clearly defines male and female.

All radical gender ideology guidance, communication, policies, and forms are removed.

Agencies will cease pretending that men can be women and women can be men when enforcing laws that protect against sex discrimination.

“Woman” means an “adult human female.”

The Executive Order directs that Government identification like passports and personnel records will reflect biological reality and not self-assessed gender identity.

The Executive Order ends the practice of housing men in women’s prisons and taxpayer funded “transition” for male prisoners.

The Executive Order ends the forced recitation of “preferred pronouns” and protects Americans’ First Amendment and statutory rights to recognize the biological and binary nature of sex.

This includes protection in the workplace and in federal funded entities like schools.

Asked why Trump is making sex-based policy a day one priority of his administration, an incoming senior administration official said, “This really was a defining issue of the campaign. The president is going to be fulfilling the promises he made on the trail.” The executive order puts it more bluntly: “Radical gender ideology has devastated biological truth and women’s safety and opportunity.”

It is becoming something of a presidential tradition to begin a term with sweeping directives regarding “gender identity.” President Biden, on his first day in office, demanded the federal government “review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions” that could impinge on transgender rights. Language and rules about transgender identities became embedded in the vast federal bureaucracy.

Now, Trump has ordered a reversal of all this. In an exclusive briefing with The Free Press, two senior officials provided a summary of the executive order. “Women deserve protections, they deserve dignity, they deserve fairness, they deserve safety,” said a senior policy adviser explaining why the order explicitly embraces the necessity of special treatment for women. “And so this is going to help establish that in federal policy and in federal laws.”

In reading the order, it’s clear that lawsuits challenging the new directives will start stacking up quickly. The order, for example, asserts that “All radical gender ideology guidance, communication, policies, and forms are removed.” This is far from mere symbolism. United States passports—which since 2022 have allowed citizens to choose “X” as their gender—will revert to offering exclusively male and female options, with the proviso that what people select must “reflect biological reality and not self-assessed gender identity.”

The executive order also “ends the forced recitation of ‘preferred pronouns’ and protects Americans’ First Amendment and statutory rights to recognize the biological and binary nature of sex.” When asked about how this would affect public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment’s free speech protections, the senior policy adviser said the U.S. attorney general will enforce these rights. The adviser cited a 2022 federal court ruling to the effect that a Shawnee State University philosophy professor was deprived of his First Amendment rights by being forced to address a transgender student using that student’s chosen pronouns.

The task of the Trump administration now will be to promulgate rules implementing the order, which will affect people’s daily lives. It is inevitable that activist organizations will take these matters to court. The policy adviser said the administration is ready for litigation, predicting Trump will be “100 percent successful.”

It’s a fight the new administration seems to relish. Both officials said the executive order has the potential to broaden the president’s support. “Just take a look at the polling,” the senior official said. “The public is broadly in favor of the president’s and of the Republican Party’s stance on gender. That there are two biological sexes is something that the public is supportive of.”

The executive order does not address one of the most contentious areas of transgender activism: “gender-affirming care” for minors, meaning putting gender-distressed young people on a swift course to transition and lifetime medication. The Biden administration ardently supported such treatments, even as other Western nations began to restrict them, and dozens of U.S. states began to ban them.

The Biden administration sued Tennessee over its ban. That case resulted in a contentious oral argument at the Supreme Court in December, after which most observers felt the court would probably uphold Tennessee’s law.

Asked about why the new executive order does not deal with this, the senior official said, “This executive order is the first of many. I would expect that anything the president said he would do on the trail regarding these issues, he’s going to be fulfilling those promises.”

The order ends with a sweeping statement about the fundamental issue the White House believes is at stake in this order: ”Men and women are equal but have obvious sexual differences,” it reads. “If federal policies promote such an obvious falsehood that men can become women, the government will forfeit all credibility. The government must maintain a commitment to recognizing biological reality to maintain the trust of the American people.”

This order is one of nearly 200 executive actions the White House is rolling out today. Among them: orders to declare a national emergency at the border; end all DEI programs across the federal government; withdrawal from the Paris climate accord; and a return-to-office directive for federal workers.

==

Go ahead and try to explain how this is unreasonable.

[coochiequeens]

There's something satisfying about when an abusive man is called out by other men. Or at least one man.

Rest In Infamy, You Haunted Castle

Why I believe the Neil Gaiman accusations

By GRAHAM LINEHAN JUL 19, 2024

I only met Neil Gaiman once, at an upscale dinner party where Derren Brown had been hired to do magic tricks like in the old-timey days. Between astonishments, Gaiman and I withdrew to a quiet corner where I pretended to be pleased that he was giving me a signed copy of ‘Sandman’. One of the unexpected advantages of being cancelled is telling people who took part in my harassment what I really think about their work, but this was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, so I said the right things and we went back to being bamboozled by Brown’s invisible craft.

To give credit where it’s due, I later read Gaiman’s ‘Coraline’ to my kids which had them simultaneously terrified and hooked, and thanked him for it. Whatever my feelings about his earlier work, he was a real writer, practising his own invisible craft. From the evidence of that book, I thought he was probably a decent person too, an impression that continued until 2022, when we started to get into it over The Issue.

I may have asked why he wasn’t speaking out on behalf of JK Rowling, who was undergoing one of her regular cancellations for refusing to pander to the spoilt brats who loved her books but missed their meaning. A big name like his might have shifted the conversation and given her some much-needed support. He might perhaps have persuaded some of his fans to give the matter another look. This was when I assumed people like him acknowledged biological reality but worried about ‘coming out of the closet’, as it were. It took me years to realise that almost every celebrity mate of mine believed, or was pretending to believe, in the fashionable, American mind-cancer of ’gender’.

But back then, I was still astonished to find that he was a carrier of the virus, the mass delusion that by sheer coincidence, turned up after the arrival of the Internet. Whether it was Bill Bailey or Neil Hannon, Robin Ince or Matt Lucas, Arthur Mathews or Jimmy Mulville, it was always the same story. A sudden cloud of amnesia would form around my celebrity mates, a real peasouper, from which they suddenly could not see why we need female-only spaces, or why unhappy teenage girls will not find a miraculous cure for their woes in a double mastectomy. Far from sharing any of my urgency in the need to stop children from being irreversibly harmed in gender clinics, they instead downplayed, deflected and dismissed. “I never ask you to join in with my animal activism” grumbled Neil Hannon on one of the occasions I begged for his support.

“Couldn’t you pretend women and children are animals?” I thought.

My usual trajectory during these conversations saw me shifting from gobsmacked disbelief to fury and despair. The disloyalty made me angry, but knowing my friends did not care about their own daughters, wives, sisters and mothers was, and continues to be, destabilising in the extreme.

Gaiman went one step further. I can’t find the tweet, so I may be paraphrasing, but he said

"I hope you're kinder if your daughter ever hopes to transition."

I can think of no uglier thing to say to a parent. For girls, ‘transition’ means double mastectomies in their teens, hysterectomies in their mid-twenties, early menopause and a four times greater chance of having a heart attack than males of the same age. To have this decaying goth wish that horror on my daughter was more than I could bear. I wanted to rip his throat out.

Like a pair of grappling cowboys falling off a rooftop, our fight spilled into email. I sent Gaiman this article about the Tavistock. It was clear when he wrote back that he hadn’t absorbed it Like most celebrities in this fight, he appeared to have lost the ability to read.

“As I said before Graham, I hope that you'd be kinder if it was one of your kids who wanted to transition. “

He actually said it again. The piece was right there, detailing exactly what was happening to the children unlucky enough to wander through the Tavistock’s doors, and he chose to repeat that disgusting thing. Why?

That same year, just months before Gaiman was advising me on the value of kindness, a 22-year-old woman (‘Scarlett’ in the podcast) arrived at his Waiheke Island home in New Zealand for a babysitting job. Upon her arrival, she discovered that Gaiman’s wife of the time, Amanda Palmer, had suddenly remembered a sleepover, an appointment the child was apparently eager to attend.

So she and junior drove out of view, leaving the 23 -year-old Scarlett alone with Gaiman for the night. Within a few hours the 61-year-old man, without warning or invitation, appeared fully naked and slipped into the other end of her bath. Scarlett alleges that over the next three weeks, they embarked on a semi-consensual relationship, where Gaiman routinely ignored the boundaries she set. She alleges that he became angry when she would refuse these demands, used a belt to beat her, insisted she call him ‘Master’ and once sexually assaulted her so violently that she lost consciousness.

“… (the sex) was so painful and so violent that I fainted. I passed out, lost consciousness, ringing in the ears, black vision, the pain was celestial, you know, which is a strange word to use, but I couldn't even describe it in language. And when I regained consciousness and I was on the ground, I looked up and he was watching the rehearsals from Scotland of whatever they were filming, I don't fucking know. And he didn't even notice that I was passed out. And you know…there was blood. It was so so, so traumatic, and I asked him to stop. I said it was too much.”

Scarlett is a compelling witness despite, or because of, her contradictions. Certain things paint a picture of consent—she sexted Gaiman, to which he would send careful replies—and she laughs nervously when she talks about the alleged abuse. But when Gaiman’s side of the story is put to her, she turns cold as a knife and shows flashes of fury that she—in her telling—young, inexperienced and dazzled by Palmer and Gaiman’s fame and lifestyle, was used so casually and so brutally.

A few years back, I wrote about becoming a sort of Jessica Fletcher figure on Twitter. ‘Murder, She Wrote” but with paedophiles and predators. “Just as murderers seemed drawn to any location Jessica presented herself, “ I said. “My opining about women's rights and safety on Twitter appeared to attract the kind of men who can't sit still during a spelling bee.”

Among my adversaries was Peter Bright, the Ars Technica writer now doing twelve years for trying to buy two children to abuse. Luckily the children didn’t exist and the parents were actually FBI agents. Our exchange was brief and concerned safeguarding. I’m sure you’re all astonished to discover that he was against it.

Then there was ex-Labour MP Eric Joyce, who argued with me about the safety of mixed-sex loos in schools and was done for possessing the worst kind of child abuse images. More recently, I tangled with ‘Lexi’, who is now serving time for rape.

They all had one thing in common. They couldn’t leave alone those of us who were actively opposing the trans movement's assault on safeguarding, an assault that chimed nicely with their plans for the future. Each was returning to the scene of a crime not yet committed, each picking at a scab on their own character.

In 2018, at the height of #MeToo, Gaiman tweeted “On a day like today it’s worth saying, I believe survivors. Men must not close their eyes and minds to what happens to women in this world. We must fight, alongside them, for them to be believed, at the ballot box, and with art, and by listening, and change this world for the better.”

Well said. I certainly believe the women in ‘Master’. During my Jessica Fletcher period (a period which continues) no-one except Gaiman ever mentioned my kids. I think he knew it would cause me distress, and the second time he said it was just a twisting of the knife. Many of my colleagues in the media joined in with the trashing of my reputation, but Gaiman went that extra mile. I believe this is because he is a sadist. I think he is a man who finds pleasure in the suffering of others, and a man who does not see women and girls as fully human.

This was my final letter to him.

Dear Neil

I notice you’re still pretending you can’t read the Tavistock story. If you ever try and lay that curse on my kids again I will certainly share our exchange. Your privileged beliefs are harming children so to paraphrase Will Smith, keep their names out of your fucking mouth.

Thank you for giving me one last chance to say that JK Rowling will be remembered as a hero and you as a traitor to the kids who loved your books.

Rest in infamy, you haunted castle.

All the best,

Graham.

[bullshit-tqia]

As a psychology student, I'm interested in how you say in your bio that you'll debunk transgender identities through logic. As someone who has written essays approved by college professors about transphobia, gender dysphoria, and gender identity, I would like to know what's your main argument against transgender identities (trans women, trans men, non-binary people, and so on).

You can refer to me in any way you want. He, she, it, they, I don't care. My identity isn't important, only my arguments and knowledge are. Let's talk about it.

-📚

I’m going to assume you’re a B.A. in psychology, not a B.S. in psychology-which is an important distinction. Most psychology majors are B.A. majors.

But also, I graduated college so you saying “approved by college professors” doesn’t mean much to me. What does "approved" mean, I got consent to write about 'XYZ' for my term papers sometimes, is that what "approved" means? I also wrote essays and got A+’s on them. I don’t see myself as an authority on the history of the U.S. South or Southern legal history. I graduated college feeling like I didn’t know enough to ever consider myself as an authority on the topic. I felt like I knew nothing. Which is why I’m going to law school.

My arguments against transgenderism are based on the “treatment” of gender dysphoria. I think gender dysphoria does exist, but I don’t think it is biological in nature like many trans theory states. This is why the distinction between a B.A. and a B.S. matters. A Bachelor of Arts focuses more on the humanities, so reading and interpreting studies through a linguistic and theoretical lens, while a B.S. focuses on conducting research and interpreting studies through a quantitative and objective lens.

In logic, it is very important to point out assumptions in people’s arguments. Many arguments for transgenderism are based on assumptions, things assumed to be true, but not things proven to be true.

For example, the fact that transwomen have “female” brains.

This study (very narrow in sample) compares the white/grey matter content of female, male, and transwoman brains.

The graph corresponds with the amount of white and grey matter in the brain, meaning that the more "female" a brain, the more grey matter it'll have, and the more white matter a brain has, the more "male" it is.

0 is female, 1 is male, -1 is super female, and 2 is super male. This study looks legit at first until I point something out.

There's only one person that was slightly below 0 in this graph in the transgender woman violin plot, half of the men meet the "obscure brain sex zone" and a little less than half of the women also meet this "obscure zone," and the majority of transgender women meet this zone.

More of the transwomen stretch into the "super male" zone than into the "super female" zone. Only one did, while a little over half of the females did.

This is supposed to prove transwomen have female brains? It seems like it does the opposite. Because of the obscurity, none between 0-1 really matter as they overlap. It is the extreme cases that matter the most. No males go below 0, no females go above 1. Many transgender women go above 1, but only one went below 0, and just barely. This can be doubted based on this one person's brain was mismeasured.

And the key assumption is, what these scientists ignored and simply assumed was true:

How does an increase in grey matter in a male's brain lead to gender dysphoria? What is the connection between grey matter and transgenderism?

Sure, they pointed out that 1 male fit into the "female" range, and that was only after meeting a prerequisite: identifying as transgender. As for the "cisgender" people, it's never specified if they included lesbian and gay men.

If they tested for that, could we have seen even more overlap? And if gay men dipped into the "female sexed brain" and lesbians rose into the "male sexed brain" then the whole study is bullshit based on these gay men still identifying as men despite having "female brains" and lesbians identifying as women despite having "male brains." But we don't know this because they didn't test for it. If it is true, then something else leads someone to identify as transgender and white matter & grey matter have nothing to do with it, but to me that is already established as the majority of the people sampled overlap each other.

The primary differences seem to be based on the influence of testosterone and estrogen in the body. None of the trans-identified men were on HRT. This is based on their natal hormone levels.

Another assumption is that in the womb, trans-identified people were exposed to more testosterone/estrogen in their brains while their body was exposed to more estrogen/testosterone. This is an assumption because:

We don't even know if this is possible, how does testosterone/estrogen begin to collect and localize to one place

How come we have never observed this in any other body part, it is the excess of androgens/insufficient androgens that cause intersex conditions, not a localization excess of estrogen in their genitals or something like that

Why haven't we tried to observe hormone flux in the womb and do long-term studies on their gender/sexuality first before assuming that HRT/SRS would fix everything?

If there is no biological basis for transgenderism, then why are we trying to fix it through biology?

If it isn't like my fucked up & misaligned teeth, something observable, then why are we assuming that the solution is just as observable as inverting a penis or stitching on a flesh tube?

If it is not something objectively measurable, how can we truly determine who is trans and who isn't?

Correlation ≠ Causation

[genderkoolaid]

sorry im gonna aut out for a second going off these tags

this book is so fucking aggravating because the author's (cis man. ofc.) reasoning for why the P.U.F isn't trans is because they didn't seem to struggle with their gender before becoming the P.U.F (we have no way of knowing this btw. not only do we have limited information on their personal life before transitioning, but whose to say they ever showed signs of being trans openly? whose to say their near-death experience didn't awaken something inside them?) and since their rebirth was due to "spiritual factors" instead "some long-term struggle over [their] identity" (because it would have to be a struggle, right?), we should only view them in the context of women's history and not trans* history.

which makes me want to rend flesh with my teeth!!!! sir you CANNOT separate spirituality from identity like that. were the priestesses of inanna not trans* despite taking on women's clothing, names, language, because they viewed their gender as a spiritual event? its so ridiculous to take someone who literally changed their entire identity because of this spiritual rebirth, and then call them by their birth name and she/her pronouns and be like "well since SHE didn't struggle with HER gender before, then SHE isn't trans!"

and its not like this is some "ohh we don't know what they would have wanted," the P.U.F made it very clear they were not Jemima, they would not tolerate being seen as her, they dressed androgynously on purpose, their followers considered them a neutral spirit. They identified as the Public Universal Friend, it doesn't matter whether you think they really were a spirit from Heaven. They did everything possible to express "I am not who I used to be and my gender is not the same as it was," how is this not trans??????? Because they weren't the fucking textbook transsexual that is the only True Trans allowed to exist???????? god forbid a trans* person's gender be more than some hellish struggle. god forbid other parts of our identity affect our gender and be inseparable. and god forbid a trans* person assigned female do literally anything because if they aren't a cis woman somehow their defiance of the patriarchy is no longer radical. paul moyer meet me in the fucking parking lot i'm gonna break your nose what is this shit. can't trust a cis to do a trans' job.

[justdavina]

I just LOVE her so much ! All day.. All night! This very sexy transgender woman is wearing a magnificent dress that I just love!

[fadedelegance]

This guy legit has no idea why 2 of the 3 women he cheated aren’t standing up on that podium next to him. He’s 100% serious. There is no irony here.

But props to those women for refusing to stand up there!

I agree with everyone who says women should refuse to compete in and refuse to attend these events until these morons get the damn picture.

P.S. What the fuck is this wOmAn+ shit?

[cosmicallydivine]

kevin day, queen of exy

i am a huge fan of the “girl who is also a prince” thing (shocking from a predominantly locked tomb blog, i know) but i love love love when male characters get feminine titles. i think it’s such an interesting way to talk about feminism and the conversation about how “women’s empowerment” in media often comes from women being masculine, which still leaves this implication that things associated with women or femininity are inherently disempowering. because the thing that’s empowering and cool about the “girl who is also a prince” or any fem character taking on a masculine title/position isn’t the masculinity, it’s the departure from a box that the character was forced into. women being masculine isn’t empowering because masculinity is empowering, it’s empowering because it’s a deconstruction of gender binaries and prescribed roles. and a really interesting way to explore that concept is to have male/masc characters be empowered by taking on feminine titles or roles. because that has the same theme of breaking out of the prescribed roles and finding power in that, AND it also presents femininity/things traditionally associated with women as something that IS strong and aspirational, which is a message that is sorely lacking in a lot of media. and also because having afab or fem characters be the only ones who are getting to play with gender and have these titles that contradict their “main” gender identity plays into the idea that masculinity and masculine language/titles positions are the “standard” and anything feminine is an add-on deviation from that norm. it’s like amab biology being taught as the standard, and then afab biology being taught in relation to where it differs from that “norm.” or like how that latin word for girl (puella) is literally a linguistic diminutive of the word for boy (puer). (i know i’m a linguistics nerd just bear with me) or going back to my first sentence, with princess being a derivative of the word prince; the femininity is an add-on, it’s an extra, it exists only in its relation to and deviation from the “norm.” like its far less jarring to hear a female character be called “sir” than to hear a male character be called “ma’am,” because we automatically think of the masculine language as more of a “default.” but all gender roles are equally made up. they’re all equally human invented, they’re all equally fake. it’s the same leap for a fem person to take on masculine language as it is for a masc person to take on feminine language and they’re both really interesting things to explore and i wish that was more explored in media.

so, all of this is to say that i genuinely think “kevin day queen of exy” is one of the most interesting takes on feminism and empowerment i’ve seen in media. because it is such a clear story of empowerment for kevin. it is literally him revolting against his abusers who tried to take his life away from him and it’s him reclaiming his own sense of identity and acknowledging and flaunting to the world how fucking good he is at his sport and he does all of that by taking on a feminine title. i just love it so much.

just- more stories with boys who are also princesses and empresses and queens please!!

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"I ain't no monkey," says the Xian creationist. "No, it sure is better to think you're descended from a magic spell, dirt, a rib and multiple waves of incest," people who understand evolution reply.

"Gender is a social construct," says the Starbucks barista with a Gender Studies degree. "No, it sure is better to think sex-associated human behaviors, preferences and tendencies are the result of a millennia-long secret, global, self-sustaining brainwashing conspiracy, especially when other primates exhibit similar behaviors, preferences and tendencies to humans through evolution, requiring a magical spell to protect homo sapiens alone from this biological process," people who understand evolution reply.

Sex-associated differences in behavior, preferences and tendencies are real, for the same reason biological differences themselves are real.

Do what you like. But don't get mad when men and women choose to do what comes naturally to them.

We are a part of nature, not separate from it.

[mxtxfanatic]

There’s something to be said about how gender is weaponized in tgcf. Like, the gods can transform between different physical genders, but their powers aren’t divided into “girl weak, boy strong.” Ling Wen is more powerful in her male form because her followers worship her as a male god. The Brocade Immortal forces her into her male form when she wears it not because that affords it more martial skill and power but because it can’t handle being pressed against the female form of the woman it loves. Shi Qingxuan is the opposite: his female form is more powerful because he is worshipped as a female god, and he enjoys that. The gods go between their forms depending on which one brings the most benefit, making gender into a weapon.

Then we have Xie Lian who, though never physically transforming into a female form, repeatedly and successfully uses people’s gender assumptions as a shield. He makes himself into a bride as to not use an innocent civilian as bait to catch a ghost, and he later disguises himself as a mother to hide from the crowd of cultivators. Because his enemies in both cases perceived women as weak and fragile, the ghost bride did not think to see if Xie Lian was a threat, and the cultivators were embarrassed at having barged in on a “defenseless woman” dressing with her “child.” The shield of “woman” allowed Xie Lian to fool his enemies and complete his goals in both cases.

Anyways, just thought this was cool.

[liskantope]

There is a general trend of less “attractive” people being characterized as less gendered or gendered the wrong way, some clear examples:

> The Infantilization of physically disabled people ( to the point the idea of fucking one or one having libido can work as a punchline)

> fatter woman being seen as “ large and manly” ( for example: a trend right now on TikTok is women acting mortified because there boyfriends pants aren’t oversized on them)

> fatter Men being mocked as feminine for getting softer and growing moobs/love handles etc.

> The Crone of the “ mother/maiden/crone” trio of classic female archetypes, who is allowed intelligence, agency and even maliciousness that is “ unfeminine” and would be out of place on younger motherly , sexy lamp, damsel in distress, or innocent little girl characters.

This brings up good and interesting points.

Clearly, as a society we view attractiveness in a pretty gendered way since the notion of attractiveness is centered around sexual attraction and our traditional idea of sexual attraction assumes that one's sexuality is about being attracted either to really feminine females or really masculine males.

Note that in your two middle examples, though, the way they're tying in these conventionally unattractive traits to gender is through suggesting that they go against biological trends for that sex: being large is associated with maleness therefore that is what gets emphasized when mocking a fatter woman; being curvier is associated with femaleness and so is emphasized when mocking a doughier man. I don't see how the example of disabled people not being sexual or desirable is actually gendered, beyond "disabled people are less attractive" + "we treat the concept of attractiveness in a way that revolves around sex" + "sex generally involves genderedness".

[mechanical-sunchild]

I am here to tell all physical nonhumans and supporters to not engage with tumblr user ursacanid on any of his posts about physical nonhumans and perhaps consider blocking. He is not open to even tolerating physical nonhumans and will not change his mind. I ascertained this myself from a very long and frustrating conversation in which he kept rehashing very classic and familiar 'anti-thisidentity' povs. Namely:

He talks a lot about 'you can be tested and your DNA and blood etc would come back as human, therefore you are physically human' and won't accept any reasoning or arguments which oppose this as the one objective truth or suggest that the experience of being physically different even if it is all psychological perception warrants the use of the word physical or literally (blank) 1/2

Not accepting the personal happiness/euphoria of physical nonhumans and the fact it's harmless (except the issues he's invented) to be a good enough reason for the use of the word 'physical' and anyone saying 'I am literally physically nonhuman' due to above 'it's illogical' mentality. 2/2

'You're special snowflakes', although he didn't use that exact phrasing he may well have as he believes that physical nonhumans simply enjoy being more special than other nonhumans and enjoy starting fights by interjecting that they are physically nonhuman and accusing people of being ableist and exclusionary.

'I don't understand your labels, so you must be doing it to confuse me', he strongly believes that physical nonhumanity is a confusing term because of it's inclusion of the word 'physical' and that refusal to change it to something he deems is more fitting is being done because the community likes to confuse people and make communication difficult and unclear.

'You're in an echo chamber because you don't like it when I tell you that you're wrong', dislikes that most physical nonhumans won't and thinks they absolutely should debate him on their identity despite the fact that he won't accept any counterargument that doesn't result in you relenting that you've got a human body. Hates all that go 'Nope I am literally this though' due to feeling they do not have to justify their identity to strangers and can't seem to understand that hostility towards this behaviour is because it is rude and uncalled for and that no group enjoys it when people not in their group or even in their group tell them that they're not actually (blank). 1/2

Sees this as indication that physical nonhumans are a toxic group which exists in an echo chamber because wanting support for your identity, or at least tolerance, and to be included/considered in the wider community/communities language and disliking anti's who tell you you're not what you are is apparently wrong. 2/2

In other words, it's completely pointless and probably upsetting to try and speak with him on the matter. His posts are going to be inflammatory because he really wants to convince the community to go against physical nonhumans, or at the very least acknowledge that 'it's not physical, it's (blank)'. I have sympathy, he's Autistic and so am I and I know what it feels like when something doesn't sit right with your internal perception of 'real and logical' and how the mind makes a mountain out of that molehill because of it, so please please don't harass him, but I keep seeing his one post go around with different people trying to get something across to him and I'm telling you it's not happening. Here is all he has to say and will ever say, you don't have to engage with him further.

[menlove]

i'm of the belief that gender is so personal and individualized that no people even can have the same gender. bc it's such a social thing- you can have major similarities and these are where we get broad labels for things, but trying to compare your experience 1:1 with someone of the same gender on gender matters is always going to make you come up short. like even cis people. we all get fed different variations of similar messages & have such wildly varying life experiences i deeply and truly think it's a personal thing for everyone. doesn't make labels useless, in fact they're incredibly useful for finding the words to talk about overarching shared problems and experiences, but the search for "what is a woman" and "what is a man" will, imo, always be fruitless bc every person will have their own answer. like what is gender if not a mix of biology, socialization, social norms, social expectations, lived experience, community, etc. none of which can be easily boiled down to a sentence or even two or three.