#...no this isn't solely about trans men* and no this isn't saying that only trans men* are affected by this...

[uncanny-tranny]

In political spheres, I so often want to ask, "is what you're doing 'punching up,' or are they just an easily-available, acceptable target?"

[molsno]

am I insane? why do people keep talking about how evil it is to put "men dni" on a blog? I've literally never seen that anywhere but the nsfw blogs of lesbians. like yeah no shit, lesbians don't want men gawking at their nudes and trying to flirt when they're expressing their sexualities. I'll be the first to say that tme lesbians are often very transmisogynistic and push trans women out of their communities but unless they're outright twerfs "men dni" is not directly targeted at trans women. it feels like a lot of people have genuinely forgotten that men regularly disrespect women's sexual boundaries, including those of lesbians who make it clear they're not interested in men whatsoever.

it's especially bizarre to me because there actually are ways to tell if any given tme lesbian is transmisogynistic or not on their nsfw blog, you just need to develop a critical eye for transmisogyny so you can identify its more subtle expressions. like, does every sexual fantasy they write almost exclusively involve people with vaginas? do they only use the word "strap" when talking about penetration? do they only reblog thirst traps from people who were afab? are they vocal about including trans people in the lesbian community but only ever seem to apply their support to transmascs? do they remain silent about transmisogyny or even push back against the theory? do they have no outspoken transfeminists that they regularly interact with in their mutual circles? do all of their sexual fantasies involving transfems presume that we are tops and doms by default? do their descriptions of our bodies not only assume that we will always have a penis, but also center almost entirely on that penis? do they reblog callout posts, especially ones about transfems? the more you answered "yes" to these questions, the more likely it is that tme lesbian is transmisogynistic!

I understand feeling insecure or suspicious when you see "men dni" on a lesbian's blog but you cannot identify transmisogyny solely by its most extreme and violent expressions, because the reality is that it's so ingrained and pervasive that it often isn't that simple. you need to develop a critical understanding of transmisogyny rooted in transfeminist theory in order to accurately assess whether someone is transmisogynistic or not. all of the fearmongering about twerfs isn't actually doing anything to combat transmisogyny and keep transfems safe.

[doberbutts]

I can't understand the idea that someone outside of an oppressed group cannot be victims of violence towards that oppressed group. That anon you deleted, the one who got mad and went "so cis people can experience transphobia!?!" Have you not read the news lately? What? What is happening to Imane Khalif right now? When you are past some arbitrary "acceptable range" of looks, behavior, etc., you become a target. As a cis woman who grew up in a conservative area, having "boyish interests" was enough for me to be subject to slurs and abuse. And it stuck around past that, because I have a small chest and broad shoulders, a long face. Whatever. Systems of oppression effect everyone under them because they all rely on "passing". You are required to reach a bar and to look and perform in certain ways and that bar is ever changing.

Well, that's why when someone was in my replies being upset that I asked how Khelif could be considered TME when transmisogyny was actively happening to her, one of the things I responded to said person was:

I don't understand how discussion the widespread effect of a systemic form of oppression and how it affects other things or is used as a weapon in other things, at all damages or erases the conversation that said systemic form of oppression is a problem. If anything, it's spreading further awareness.

I understand if the concern is that not enough people are caring about the trans women to whom transmisogyny happens on a regular basis, and are instead only ever caring about non trans fems and their relationship with being on the receiving end of transmisogyny. That is a problem, and it's one that does need to be talked about more often.

However I don't think any other form of oppression is specifically locked to only the people who identify as that oppressed demographic. Men experience misogyny. White people experience racism. Abled people experience ableism. "You throw like a girl" "you're not my daughter if you marry that black man" "what are you, deaf?" these are all things that are experienced by the "wrong" demographic, because in truth? The demographic doesn't matter.

These are systems we're talking about- the system of misogyny is what leads boys who fail to be masculine enough to be compared to girls as a way to state they are inferior, because the point is that with the system of misogyny, girls are inherently inferior to boys. Therefore, calling a boy a girl is calling him weaker, lesser, and not good enough.

The system of racism is what leads white parents to disown their children if their children date outside of their race. The point is that under the system of racism, interracial dating is seen as an aberration, and these racist parents then reject their own children for daring to love someone who is not white.

The system of ableism is what leads people to make comparisons to disability when bringing up someone's shortcomings. Disabled people are largely seen as failures in abled society, so by pointing to disability whenever faced with what is perceived as inadequacy, the system of ableism operates to continue to associate being disabled with worthlessness, and being abled with having worth.

Hell, it was not that long ago that "gay" and "retarded" were used as synonyms for "bad" and "stupid". Some people still use these words that way. It was a fucking Rick and Morty joke a few years ago, this isn't ancient history.

So when I'm told that I don't experience a system of oppression based solely on my labeled demographic and not on my actual lived experience, my immediate first thought is "that's not how systems of oppression work, literally everyone experiences these things in different ways, because that's what is meant when we call something systemic, it means the entire fucking system is built around this as a crux of logic"

Which is very weird to me then when someone tells me that by saying Khelif is/was experiencing transmisogyny, I'm erasing trans women. How? I genuinely don't understand how that's possible when I'm saying that the explicit hatred and fear of the trans woman boogeyman is what led us here in the first place. I am saying "this comes directly from people pushing transmisogynistic rulings for years and was always going to be the end result when they finally excluded all the actual trans women". I'm saying "it was bad logic when applied to trans women and it's bad logic even now, being applied to a [self-identified] perisex cisgender 'biological' woman and we should have put our foot down about it years ago when trans women and intersex women were actually competing".

Transmisogyny is a system of oppression. The system is functioning normally even when it fires at targets it's "not supposed to". That's what happens under systemic oppression. That's a feature, not a bug.

[sapphicsvibes]

my last post was also about the discussions of transmisogyny centering cis female athletes who are women of color. there is a wider conversation being had about transmisogyny in athletics, and that is that, trans women aren't even allowed to compete. before we start discussing how transmisogyny impacts not trans fems, we need to actually center the discussion around the heavily, transmisogynstic shit that is already happening.

and when we talk about how cis woc athletes being overly masculinized and decide to call it transmisogyny instead of what it actually is, racism, it sets us back. there is this understood idea that people can be indirectly impacted by transmisogyny, but unless the subjects of those conversations are transfeminine people, then the focus shouldn't be transmisogyny.

it should be racism. it should be the fact that the white, western gender binary and idea of femininty/womanhood is so fucked up that cis girls of color from a young age are viewed as more masculine, dangerous and larger than white women. we should be focusing on the complexities of misogynoir that black girls go through from childhood to adult hood where we are both masculinized and also hypersexualized and exposed to harmful race science that gets us preyed upon by older men. we should focus on how these conversations of masculinizing women of color comes to play in how white women and white afabs (yes, i know i said i dont like using afabs but i am starting ot use it when discussing the lived experience of white afab people and how that negatively impacts people of color in queer spaces) can utilize their privilege, tears, femininity, etc., to turn society against cis girls of color and how we are automatically seen as a threat to them

we need to talk about racialized misogyny when dicussing imane khelif, and how white women like jk rowling, who has a history of transmigoyny yes, but also anti-arab/MENA racism and islamaphobia, and is prominent in alt right groups, is using her platform to attack a possible muslim, MENA woman. and that's a big thing that hardly anyone talks about - Rowling is heavily islamphobia and anti-arab. when you se guys see her attacking a MENA woman, and decide to focus solely on transmisogyny, you are quite literally erasing a huge chunk of her bigotry.

yes, indirect transmisogyny comes to play, but when you are talking about racialized misogyny, you NEED to make sure that is the main focus - racism and misogyny, because if you don't you make it hard if not impossible for us to have any type of productive conversation. you guys being too afraid to call out racism and misogyny makes it seem like you are shielding white women/afabs and white society from the pain they have put women of color through for decades.

the same goes for misogynoir??? like when we are talking about misogynoir and them completely ignore it and lump it under transmisogyny, who does that help? not only does the black community have an issue with transmisogyny in general, but it also erases a term that we've come up with to help better discuss our oppression.

also, this isn't to say that trans woc don't face racialized misogyny and misogynoir (black transfems!) because they do. but it should be understood that while THEY face these things, transmisogyny is something that should also center them. and while we, as non trans fem women do face racialized misogyny/misogynoir - yeah, sometimes we can draw comparisons between transmisogyny, but we shouldn't be the ones taking the lead or taking platforms.

and last but not least, the way you guys who are claiming what is happening to cis female athletes is transmisogynistic. Do you know how many trans people, who aren't trans fem, that i've seen saying

"see, this is why we need to talk about transmisogyny affecting non transfems! xyz athlete was actually born a woman, she's not a man, she is afab! she has a vagina!" do you realize how that language is terfy, do you realize how you guys will try to hijack convos of transmisogyny while also reinforcing transmisogynistic requirements of what makes a woman a woman?

[purpledemonlilyposting]

Lily is making throwaways to talk to herself now cause she's too afraid to turn anons back on.

[Lily's post]

There are so many golden nuggets in here. Since these are both most likely Lily lets look at a few!

Lily's media takes are beyond just bad, she asserts that the creators of children's cartoons are dangerous extremists for perceived bad messaging in their works that Lily just makes up.

Even without that Lily's takes on symbolism, metaphor, and just basic narrative structure are worth examining because they are some of the most bizarre and ignorant many of us have ever encountered.

But no one "orients their life around you", Lily. It just feels that way because you sit in your subsidized apartment on the internet all day ordering Door Dash from a Subway you could easily walk to. I'd say get some sun but you'd probably turn to ash like a vampire.

As for me? I do something you're incapable of: putting on a show.

No one cares you're trans, Lily. Get over it. Plenty of trans people exist in online nerd culture. You can't hide from the consequences of your own words and actions by using your demographic as shield.

Pfft. They could try. Go ahead. Make videos about me. Hell, Lily, unlike you I don't even hold or delete comments. The little anklebiters who like to lecture me in my comment section don't seem to realize I'm the one allowing them to be there expressing their stupid ignorant opinions because that aligns with my principles.

Lily doesn't make a video about me because she knows I'd just react to and laugh at it. And with any luck YouTube has taken her ability to copyright strike away because she's used it maliciously 9 times.

Also retard. Just say retard, Lily. Not "tradigrade" not "child left behind" not "fetal alcohol syndrome". Just say retard.

You clearly want to. And are bitter you can't because of the insular audience you've cultivated.

This is how I know it's you because only Lily Orchard could be upset I criticized the bland Antarctica anime for being a bland Antarctica anime the sole focus of which is to get 4 teenage moeblobs on a big technical ship. Which is written by a middle aged man who does nothing but moeblob shows and directed by a woman who does nothing but moeblob shows. They both worked on No Game No Life, Lily. You know. This:

The one with the 11 year old loli in love with her step brother. Actually Lily it sounds right up your alley. You should watch it next.

Antarctica show is so full of so many plot contrivances. Why does Shirase just carry her wad of Antarctica cash everywhere and dropped it so carelessly? It's sure convenient that her and Kimari just happen to go to the same school and Kimari happens to hear her loudly wailing about the money in the bathroom. How does Hinata, a 16 year old high school drop out who works in a convenience store think she can even hope to afford this trip? Where are her parents in this anyway? We never see them.

The girls only get on the trip in the first place because another girl who is a child star vlogger just happens to be also going and just happens to contact them wanting them to go in her stead. And after making friends with them she tells her mother that she won't go without the other 3 girls but... the rest of the expedition that adamantly refused to let them on before just suddenly agrees to take them? Because this one minor celebrity and her manager mom who isn't even going said so? Takako only wanted to go to Antarctica because it just sounded neat, she's not an artic researcher, or engineer, or anything that would justify her being out there (a woman in STEM? Perish the thought says 50 year old Jukki Hanada I guess) and she died out in a blizzard trying to get a laptop to email her daughter who she has now left motherless for no good reason. And this is only ever treated as heartwarming and not idiotic.

Face it Lily. The entire show exists just to get 4 teenage girls on a big ship so otaku men can enjoy both brainless moeblobs and technical ship porn. The show sure likes to emphasize over and over how the girls are joshi kosei too. Why couldn't the show have been about the trip of the adult women (who incidentally also act like brainless teenage girls in the show)?

Yeah you guys aren't winning against me on Utena lol. Here, have my post where I have the video walking people through the episode itself. If you want to ignore the actual text of the series in order to appear morally forthright that's your own problem:

And everyone on the bus clapped, and that Asian woman's name? Albert Einstein. What does this have to do with anything except poisoning the well by linking this unsourced incident in peoples' minds to Ant and I?

Also it's Twitter. So Twitter is bad and unreasonable here, but they're not bad and unreasonable when they're squawking at me over a classic anime they've never even watched. Or squawking at Ant cause "L-L-Lily is totes a Native trans woman?? So you can't criticize any of the batshittery that spews constantly from her face hole??"

Ah now we're on to Lily's response to herself.

Oh look out Ant, Lily's got damning screenshots she just can't show anybody right now.

Probably similar to when she happily accepted a screenshot from Poppy of Poppy being creepy to Courtney and tried to blame Courtney for it.

Lily you attract attention when people talk about you because the wider nerdy internet knows your takes are insanely bad. And they know your takes are all tangled up in your personal dramas and heinous actions. They can tell. You're not as subtle as you think you are.

I cut together my response to your bad Utena takes in your 2023 Steven Universe video on a whim and slapped it on my completely unestablished personal YouTube account. It got 5k views in a few days. That's how disliked you are.

Nobody knows who I am but you sure copyright struck 4 of my livestream VODs trying to take my channel down. The 4 VODs where I most talk about your blatantly obvious incest fetish at that. Nobody knows who I am but I've gained 10k subs in 6 months primarily from dunking on you. Because I'm better at YouTube than you are.

And people do bitch at me for saying retard constantly. And you know why I keep doing it? Because the ones who most often tell me not to are some of the most annoying, entitled, self-righteous, puritanical control freaks and it's an easy way to weed them out.

By the way have fun trying to find a lawyer within 10 days who will tell you "Why yes, Lily, you can absolutely copyright these videos of yours full of footage that belong to Viacom, Netflix, Amazon, Toei Animation, Dreamworks, Activision-Blizzard, and many more!"

[intersexcat-tboy]

hello! this question may come off as ignorant and i apologise, but what's wrong with the terms tme and tma? i know what it means but i dont really understand the (for lack of a better word) issue with these terms.

i looked it up and it didn't really help me all that much :<

I could've sworn I had several posts tagged w it explaining a few reasons why but now there's only 2? 🤔

Here's a starter (link)

There are a few reasons, on their own it's whatever ig, but it relies on the assumption oppression is based solely on identity and not ever considering how your oppressors see you. There isn't a "ableism immune" or "homophobia immune" bc we understand hate crimes are based on PERCEIVED or actual status, not just actual. What's happening to Imane Khelif is being called transmisogyny everywhere, so clearly it's not limited to just transfems, but many will then turn around and say those who were AFAB can't experience it. Some have discussed using "targeted" to convey how it's disproportionately faced rather than arguing how people are incapable of facing it, and I understand that argument better but....

One of the big things is the issue of how people use them. I wouldn't have an issue at all if they were solely personal descriptors, similar to AGAB, to describe your own experience. Instead, people use them to deny violence and oppression. People thinking they get to determine others experiences.

On another side, it's basically used as the Top Misery Award and The Mild Expierence. If you're TMA, it's treated as facing the most or worst oppression, if you're TME, are you really oppressed? Actually, you're privileged (not HAVE a privilege, ARE privileged). This aligns with white feminism believing misogyny is the root or worst oppression.

Most of the people who use it tend to think trans men don't have their own type of oppression faced disproportionately, oftentimes erasing that violence as well. A lot outright deny intersexism and refuse to engage with any points made by intersex individuals about how it affects us as well.

Then there's the whole aspect of how it's "supposed" to mean everyone but transfems (which is kinda a weird thing to want a word for when calling similar ones co-opting), but they only ever use it to mean trans people who were AFAB. You can tell this by how things are said (tme being used for intercommunity), or something like "TRANS TMEs since I guess I have to say that to make it clear 🙄"

There's also the fact everyone defines it differently. Some way you need to have been born w a penis, others say you need to have been AMAB, which contradict each other as someone who was AFAB could have been born w a penis, and some people have multiple AGABs (such as at birth and then a few weeks later)

If you only use it to describe yourself, idrc

[sualne]

i kind of want to ramble a bit about being underweight and the way people treated me changed as i socially transitioned and aged.

for quick context i was literally born underweight, i'd been starving to death in the womb and needed to get out early, a doctor even said it was too late, that i was already dead, that was not the case.

anyway for as long as i remember people would always comment on how thin i was, as a kid it didn't mean much but approaching puberty the "you need to eat more" turned into "people would kill to have a body like yours" comments about having a wasp waist among more disturbing ones, i socially transitioned as 16, i was getting those comment at 12. i still got remarks about how i should gain weight but it was always accompanied by this "but not too much, you need to stay thin, thin is good." sentiment so gaining weight was never truly seen as an actual emergency, something that should actually happen, it was more of a reflex sort of comment, people didn't mean it too seriously.

that changed when people started seeing me as a man, suddenly i was not so thin and fragile, so feminine and pretty i was visibly weak and unmanly and that pisses the shit out of other (older) men. now people really meant it when they say i should gain weight but unlike before that vaguely "i'm worried for your health (but you look much better like this anyway so don't change it)" sentiment disappeared, it was all about performing masculinity properly, about becoming a muscular big strong manly man. you see it all the time, thinness being associated with femininity, even trans people who should know better keeps on going "wow so gender" to people who are only just being thin and otherwise pretty damn conforming. obviously a lot of this depends where you live.

now this also the moment i need to mention thinphobia isn't a thing, people don't actually care about the fact that you're thin, it's about failing to meet gender role's standards and looking visibly sick which get people Really uncomfortable, they don't want to be reminded disabled & chronically ill people exist. fatphobia is genuinely and purely about hating the fact that fat people exist, they don't actually give the slightest shit about possible health issues they're just dipshits, those are excuses to pretend it's justified so they can feel better about themselves, it's also systemic and get people killed all the time. doctor might tell me gaining some weight couldn't do me any bad but they've never insisted it was the sole and only reason for every single one of my issues, they usually don't even mention it all.

i don't have a point or conclusion for this.

[transbookoftheday]

🏳️‍⚧️🏴‍☠️ Trans Books To Read If You Love "Our Flag Means Death" 🏴‍☠️🏳️‍⚧️

Can't get enough of Our Flag Means Death? Read some trans pirate books!

On Mar León de la Rosa's sixteenth birthday, el Diablo comes calling. Mar is a transmasculine nonbinary teen pirate hiding a magical ability to manipulate fire and ice. But their magic isn't enough to reverse a wicked bargain made by their father, and now el Diablo has come to collect his payment: the soul of Mar's father and the entire crew of their ship. When Mar is miraculously rescued by the sole remaining pirate crew in the Caribbean, el Diablo returns to give them a choice: give up their soul to save their father by the harvest moon, or never see him again. The task is impossible - Mar refuses to make a bargain, and there's no way their magic is a match for el Diablo. Then Mar finds the most unlikely allies: Bas, an infuriatingly arrogant and handsome pirate - and the captain's son; and Dami, a gender-fluid demonio whose motives are never quite clear. For the first time in their life, Mar may have the courage to use their magic. It could be their only redemption - or it could mean certain death.

(The audiobook for "The Wicked Bargain" is narrated by Vico Ortiz!)

In a world divided by colonialism and threaded with magic, a desperate orphan turned pirate and a rebellious imperial lady find a connection on the high seas. Aboard the pirate ship Dove, Flora the girl takes on the identity of Florian the man to earn the respect and protection of the crew. For Flora, former starving urchin, the brutal life of a pirate is about survival: don’t trust, don’t stick out, and don’t feel. But on this voyage, Flora is drawn to the Lady Evelyn Hasegawa, who is headed to an arranged marriage she dreads. Flora doesn’t expect to be taken under Evelyn’s wing, and Evelyn doesn’t expect to find such a deep bond with the pirate Florian. Neither expects to fall in love. Soon the unlikely pair set in motion a wild escape that will free a captured mermaid (coveted for her blood) and involve the mysterious Pirate Supreme, an opportunistic witch, double agents, and the all-encompassing Sea herself. Deftly entwining swashbuckling action and quiet magic, Maggie Tokuda-Hall’s inventive debut novel conjures a diverse cast of characters seeking mastery over their fates while searching for answers to big questions about identity, power, and love.

The Lost Boys say that Peter Pan went back to England because of Wendy Darling, but Wendy is just an old life he left behind. Neverland is his real home. So when Peter returns to it after ten years in the real world, he's surprised to find a Neverland that no longer seems to need him. The only person who truly missed Peter is Captain James Hook, who is delighted to have his old rival back. But when a new war ignites between the Lost Boys and Hook's pirates, the ensuing bloodshed becomes all too real - and Peter's rivalry with Hook starts to blur into something far more complicated, sensual, and deadly.

In the Christian Republic, homosexual people are given two choices—a camp to "fix" them, or exile to the distant islands populated by lesbians and gay men. Sixteen-year-old Jason chooses exile and expects a hardscrabble life but instead finds a thriving, supportive community. While exploring his identity as a transgender boy he also discovers adventure: kraken attacks, naval battles, a flying island built by asexual people, and a daring escape involving glow-in-the-dark paint. He also has a desperate crush on Sky, a spirited buccaneer girl, but fear keeps him from expressing his feelings. When Jason and his companions discover the Republicans are planning a war of extermination, they rally the people of the Rainbow Islands to fight back. Shy, bookish Jason will have to find his inner courage or everything and everyone he loves will be lost forever.

Book titles:

The Wicked Bargain by Gabe Cole Novoa

The Mermaid, the Witch, and the Sea by Maggie Tokuda-Hall

Peter Darling by Austin Chant

Rainbow Islands by Devin Harnois

[roachliquid]

I really have to emphasize that the concept of "trans (gender) is simultaneously whatever combination of genders I think gives them the most privilege" is not new, nor is it something that only affects trans men. People have tried to apply the concept of binary gender oppression every which way on trans identities, framing any gender that they think they can get to fit as the oppressor.

They'll claim that trans women have male privilege because of how they were (supposedly) raised. That nonbinary folk have privilege because they can (again, supposedly) just go back in the closet whenever it's convenient, and of course there's this shit about "trans men are equal in power and influence to cis men/women (depending on which we think privileges them the most)".

Every time this happens, it's born out of the misguided urge to treat trans identities as a binary. They are attempting to find a parallel to how cis identities are framed within feminism, complete with a unidirectional "oppressor/oppressed" relationship between genders.

The issue with this is that no trans gender is a social analog to a cis one. This isn't to say that trans people can't have binary genders comparable to cis people's, but unlike most cis people*, our genders are not automatically recognized, and as I've explained above, perceptions of our genders can change on a dime based solely on what the other party thinks will benefit them the most. Our access to the privileges we're constantly accused of having can vary dramatically, based on a multitude of factors that literally include "whether other people feel like being nice to us today".

*Being cis is not a guaranteed exemption from being denied your own gender, but it does often help.

[cuubism]

Hey just wanted to say you're not a killjoy at all, you're actually absolutely correct

Thank you, I wish I didn't have to be 😔 I wish we lived in a world where gender equality was so long solidified that we could make silly jokes like that and not have it inadvertently feed into real world misogyny. I could see a world where women's inequality was so far in the past that 'ugh i wish i could just have someone else pay for everything' could be a funny #relatable 'we all hate working' kind of joke because everyone understood we don't actually want dependency. But that's not this time period when so many people genuinely believe that a woman's place is only in the home, and when young women might see that joke and believe that giving up their independence is a good idea or that women fighting for the right to equality in employment was a mistake. It inadvertently feeds into the rising tide of misogyny and points people towards those "traditional values" influencers that really push the idea that women should (god i hate the phrase "women should") submit to men and that their only valid life path is being a wife and mother. Especially when algorithms tend to push people down alt-right rabbit holes, like, even my insta feed is full of trad wife fundamentalist christian content because I hate watch it and then the algo feeds me more 😂 that's on me really I should just block all those accounts.

I mean, I sympathize, I hate my job sometimes too, I think everyone would like to have a life where they didn't have to work 40+ hours a week and had more leisure time. Unfortunately we live in a world where money by and large equates to freedom. So my go to complaint isn't wow I wish I had no life choices and was dependent on a man for my livelihood! when I'm irritated about work 😂

A lot of the content made by younger women online recently seems kind of regressive in its approach to gender roles, "i can't do this i'm just a girlie" and so on (I'm aware it's a joke, but oftentimes stuff starts as a joke and then reaches people who don't see it as one), and I worry about us backsliding. I'm concerned by young women idealizing the Trad Wife lifestyle, not knowing their history and how dangerous a position it puts women in. I'm concerned by the 'stay at home girlfriend' trend, possibly MORE dangerous for how it lacks even the meager property and alimony protections of marriages. I'm concerned by the increasing gendered political divide and radicalization of young men, the way misogyny has become more and more virulent and loud and normalized over the past few years. The way women's rights are being rolled back with even more restrictions being pushed by the Right in an attempt to hold onto power and maintain their hierarchical worldview.

We need feminism more than ever right now, and additionally I think we all need to reclaim it from radfems and terfs. The word has become too associated with them, to the point I fear people are afraid to call themselves feminists for fear of it being misinterpreted, and I'm sick of it, why should terfs get to define it? Especially when our rights in society are all entwined. Reproductive rights--an issue that doesn't solely impact women but does disproportionately affect women--arises from the same root issue of fundamental bodily autonomy as does trans rights. Moreover the existence of trans and nonbinary people reinforces gender equality because if gender and sex are malleable, not fundamental and binary, then upon what basis is the oppression of women? How can one claim that women are less than men, or that women and men 'should' hold such and such roles when even the role of 'woman' or 'man' is not discrete. I hope terfs can come around to seeing that.

I don't believe in policing people's online activity unless it's like actually threatening hate speech, so I'm certainly not going to tell them they can't joke how they want. I just hope they think about why that's where their mind goes when they don't want to work, instead of wishing that society didn't work people to the bone, that people had more leisure time, that jobs were better and more meaningful etc. I hope they think about the women around the world who are still denied education and denied the right to work and forced to depend on their family or husband with no freedom or autonomy, and how much work it took women in the past to even get where we are, and how much there still is left to do.

[paletigers]

DAI and My Questions as a Trans Guy

So, I recently got into Dragon Age again (thanks @/fullgoob) and I've been sitting here with a thumb up my ass because I really would love to write a fanfic about Solas but I feel like I'm not there yet.

To any DAI fans, or DA fans in general, do we know how Elven and Dalish culture view trans people?

(Long thoughts ahead and very sleep deprived thoughts:)

We obviously only see transness through the lens of the Qun and Krem. (Only speaking to DAI, I haven't played the other games yet.) In the Qun, people are put into gender based on their role in society. In a conversation with Cassandra and Iron Bull, Iron bull states that women who are warriors are considered "men" under the Qun solely based on their role. He also sees Krem as a, for all intents and purposes, as a man not because of his role but because of who he is as a person and because he's just a great guy and cares (poor wording on my part, sorry). Now whether or not the Qun is "progressive" for this isn't what I'm curious about.

I'm curious on the rest of the party. We don't get to see or hear reactions of Krem's gender from anyone else besides Cassandra and Bull, but it's more about Qunari society and less about Krem, and Cassandra makes neither a positive nor negative remark.

So, to make a long story short and get to the point: How would Solas feel about a trans inquisitor? And adding onto that, how do the Dalish treat transgendered people/transexuals? Homosexuality is more "accepted" in Southern Thedas, but the Dalish are really keen on keeping tradition alive and passing down their lore, so I would assume that 'bonding' and child bearing is important one way or another. The acceptance of homosexuality would be on a case to case basis.

I really don't know how the Dalish would treat transgender people, however. I would assume that for the most part, as long as you are fufilling your duty (whether you are to be a keeper, hunter, mage, etc.) it wouldn't bare any issue. The issue of child bearing and keeping up the population and passing down the gift of magic would pose a question, but so would it in the case of homosexuality. I assume that as long as population numbers are steady and there is no active threats against this, trans people and gay people are fine. It would varey from clan to clan.

Now, Solas. I really can't get a read on this guy. I would like to believe he would be accepting (just cause I, unfortunately, love him) but I don't really have any justifications for this (I also don't have justifications for the opposite either, not trying to be negative, lol). Sera, from her point of view, sees the Lavellan/Solas relationship and says Solas probably shouts "Elven glory!" during sex, but that's just from her perspective as a City Elf with her biases towards the Dalish. The most I can gather from my single playthrough of DAI is that Solas would, probably, be super understanding about it. He doesn't have much connection to this world at all, much preferring the Fade, so maybe being transgender is just a new concept to him. Or, maybe it's completely normal, since spirits in the fade just... mimic the lives of mortals. Spirits are completely agender, just encompassing a specific purpose and fufilling that purpose, they have no use for the concept of gender. AND THEN... we know Solas is only straight because Bioware wanted to avoid a negative trope and have him not be bisexual. Because IF Solas lives with agender beings ALL THE TIME then why would he care if the Inquisitor is a woman or not?!

So, as I write this currently, I think I have come to a small conclusion:

I don't think he would "care" in a negative sense. I don't think he would be rude or crass, or even angry about the inquisitor coming out as trans. I don't even think that current canonical straight Solas would care if he was in a relationship with female Lavellan and Lavellan came out as a trans man to him. I think he would probably consider this natural and completely not "odd". Probably would say some shit about how in the fade, a lot of his spirit friends don't have gender either. I feel like he's a guy who just GETS it. He would probably have questions about like, the bodily process of transitioning (I still don't understand how the body magic works. Is it like magical HRT? Do they do like, magical T shots or rub magical T gel? Is there puberty blockers? Do you even have to do voice training? Someone please tell me) and would try his best to understand. If he got rid of your hand could he perform top surgery? Just like rift fade them off your body? Would you trust Solas to do your top surgery? I think I would.

Anyway. Let me know if we got any other opinions or stuff to add onto this. I really want to write some transguy fics with him because there is a SEVERE lack of them on AO3.

[batsysquared]

The controversy going on with the Olympics right now is completely and utterly horrific. It is a bubbling cauldron of intersexism, transphobia, racism, and misogyny. And it's not new! This is a story that has played out before - not just in the Olympics, but in various situations even outside the realm of sporting, all across the world. When it comes to intersex people, the utter social dissection and public humiliation for not being Proper is a story that marks our very births, the one that begins from the day we're born, and every time it comes up it is deeply entwined with all of these other prejudices. But this time, there's one thing that different. The (alleged! completely alleged!) medical proof that's landed in their hands has enabled them to show plain and bare that they never cared about anything but their hatred of The Undefinable Enemy, and anyone who is sufficiently marginalized can be placed in that box when narratively convenient. To me, a person who ticks every box on display here, this was obvious - and I'll be putting aside the racism and plain misogyny for now since those are already well covered. But as far as interphobia goes - we've never fit in the category of "cis", whether we consider ourselves to be men or women, and frankly people have a hard time wrapping their heads around us being trans, excepting people who just hate trans people for existing. It's because of this that many intersex people just want to be seen as normal - and, wouldn't you know it? That's a talking point that TERFs and other various transphobes use to pretend they just care oh so much! "Oh, don't bring up those poor people! They just want to be normal boys and girls just like us, they're just rare, unique, disgusting victims of a birth defect! Not perverted and ill freaks like you!" So now, nobody has an excuse for missing what they really think when they say this: the second they can find alleged proof that a woman isn't correctly a woman - the people who manage to acknowledge that intersex and trans aren't the same thing go ahead and talk about how she's a failed man and ought to be treated as such. "It's unfortunate that she has this horrific genetic affliction," they say, "but, well...a man is a man." So much for being treated normal, right? But less obvious before this incident was that every time, every time, they missed what any intersex person ever meant by "wanting to be normal". And of course, it's because they never cared. Our struggles are only brought up solely to shoot down the arguments trans people and allies make that involve us, never to actually consider us or acknowledge the intersexist systems that the occasional trans person or ally will accidentally support. No, again, that'd involve caring. If they did, they'd understand that the plea to be treated normally is a plea to simply be considered as the thing the intersex individual wants to be considered as, without any scrutiny or "buts" or "you poor freak, we need to fix you", regardless of whether they choose to be a man or a woman or both or neither.

Yet even when they're afforded the grace of male or female, it is never without scrutiny. Every day we're questioned, even for those of us not aware of what we are. The societal push against our normality is so stark in every conversation we have about masculinity or femininity and its expectations that these pressures are often the only reason intersex people even learn they're intersex! The circumstances of their birth are hidden from them, a footnote in a surgical record, and they later have some other "problem" that must be fixed. Sometimes this problem that really affects them in some tangible life-altering medical sense, and sometimes it only does so as a result of society saying "hey, are you sure you're the thing you know you are and that we said you are? because damn you're hairy/tall/short/strong/chiseled/soft/tragically micropenised/possessed of breasts of an unusually small or large size for what you Ought To Be!". And of course, either way, once they're adults it's their prerogative to correct whatever they want! But that doesn't excuse the way that society treats this as an expectation of us, and no amount of societally enforced self-loathing changes the fact that it is an expectation, even when this false sympathy is expressed for our plight. (And, you know, if they cared about what intersex people want or the plights we go through, they'd spend less time crying about the nonexistent problem of children being "mutilated" by the trans menace and more about the very real and constant tragedy that is coercive surgical sexual assignment of literal newborns, but lol. lmao.)

My solace here is that now these incidents can be pointed at as evidence that the cry of "don't use intersex people as a shield!" is hollow concern trolling - and also that it makes clear how important liberation from both gender and sex as rigid categories are for, well, everyone, but for intersex people in particular. I'd also hope to see less "oh so transphobia only matters when it affects a cis person" pop up when intersex people get smeared into bloody streaks across the ground, as if women who do wish to fit in the category of "cis" but fail to be considered as such by society due to the circumstances of their birth don't also feel the constant daily sting of transmisogyny - or as if transphobia simply misses people for whom the terms "afab" and "amab" are most relevant. Being both trans and intersex, my experience has been that the discriminatory line here is about as thin as it gets.

But, well, one of these revelations is more important than the other, so I'll settle for not being a toy to be played with by fascists over being slapped by casual intersexism from people that at least recognize we should be working together. Sometimes that's the most one can ask, yeah?

[autogyne-redacted]

tbh, your recent post about transandrophobia synthesizes my thoughts about it very well, and im surprised you're getting backlash. the only additions i would make is that the gender/sex binary in the west was originally very explicitly a white supremacist creation, even down to the categories of male/female, and lionizing any aspect of that tends to get really racist really fast no matter how feminist or well intentioned. i guess you'd call me a trandandrobro bc i hang out in the tag and sometimes use the word for specific things (like when the lab threw out my cervical cancer test cells bc the cup was labelled M) but, i genuinely don't disagree with a single one of your points. i've been getting uncomfortable with the increasingly reactionary nature of the conversation on transandrophobia and i appreciate your take a lot.

Rambling about transandrophobia

Tbh It's been really surprising to see transandrophobia types interacting with that post all around.

And mostly it boils down to me having had windows into transandrophobia discourse that makes it seem bad*. And other ppl treating these aspects as exceptions to a discourse they see as basically good.

And I recognize that in part this is just how polarized internet discourses work. Like, if my windows into transandrophobia are largely when something egregious gets said and passed around in my circles, that's gonna give a way different impression then if ppl are part of the discourse and curating a slice they agree with.

And the consistent overall harassment of any attempt to talk about transmisogyny and constant bad faith engagements (eg attacks on agab and cagab language, cafab attempts to ID as trans women and as direct targets of transmisogyny) mean few of us are still in a position to assume good faith with internet strangers we run into who identify with a discourse that very much seems to have a massive transmisogyny problem.

.

My slightly more extended position on transandrophobia, since I've been thinking about it the past few days is:

1) I'm broadly supportive of ppl talking about their experiences and trying to find common ground even around shared ~privilege~, so long as it's done with a commitment to broader, collective liberation. (Eg cis men getting together from a feminist perspective to talk about patriarchy = good, cis men doing so with no specific opposition to normative masculinity = fashy).

2) the general attitude I've seen from transandrophobia world is to say: this has nothing to do with anyone other than trans mascs ppl other than trans mascs aren't welcome as part of this discourse: it's by us for us. Intentionally creating an insulated discourse especially around a point of (partial) privilege has a terrible track record. But regardless of relative positionality insulated discourses are just going to be more limited. They can create theory that's empowering for the creator group but it's probably not gonna get much mileage beyond and it's easy for it to be actively harmful.

3) I've thought for ages that trans masc experience seems ~under theorized~ and that transphobia is rly under theorized too. And it'd be really cool to see this addressed in a way that isn't rife with transmisogyny. It does seem like transandrophobia discourse is addressing a real hole, it's just doing in a way that rly sketches me out.

4) really I think gender discourse overall is just not in a great place rn. It was 1990 when Judith Butler questioned whether it makes sense for women to be the sole/primary subject of feminism, and we had major interventions that I'd say reached a peak in the early to mid 2010's (criticisms of white feminism, of cis feminism, intersectionality becoming a dominant framework).

There's a strong tendency to say that we're basically in a post gender world, or that race is just a more fundamental framework (which I strongly disagree with)** and I do think we really need a rebuilt gender theory that has teeth to it. Trying to build theory around transmisogyny I've found it necessary to do a lot of general theory building around gender. How normative masculinity and femininity work, how gender is policed. I don't think we're gonna be able to make a clean break from identity politics until we can have a strong theory framework that lets us talk about this shit from outside identity politics.

5) this is v rambly but I'm inclined to engage with transandrophobia discourse a little more than lots of my circles in part because I really want there to be more good theory building going on around gender, from different positions and across positions. One day, maybe.

*full of transmisogyny/denials of transmisogyny, trans masc exceptionalism and a failure to recognize and be in solidarity around shared issues with trans fems and cis men.

**getting back to the part of your ask about the history of gender and white supremacy, there's a huge entanglement between gender and race, gender and civilization. Normative gender differentiation has been a classic way the civilized set themselves apart from those they deem savage.

Broad claims like the one you make in your ask anon get messy tho. Like, a largely binary model of gender is older than history but you can also talk about the modern binary having really only come about over the past couple centuries (and obviously it's heavily contested and changing rn). Similarly you could say the modern concept of whiteness came about through the trans Atlantic slave trade (and then has been constantly shifting and getting redefined ever since) but there's obviously much older histories it's building off of.

I'm realizing now that maybe you meant the binary divide between sex vs gender as opposed to the male vs female binary but I can't tell which. Either way, my position here is mostly that it's really really messy to make big historical claims. It's such a high level view you can tell a lot of different stories with the available historical evidence. Ideas about gender and race have a heavily entangled history tho and it's certainly gonna go poorly if you treat either as natural.

[uncanny-tranny]

Quit being transphobic and adding the asterisk to make it say trans men* and trans women*. It's 2023. I thought we were past this.

This is probably about my post about trans women and trans men exchanging advice since it's been gaining traction, and I add the asterisk to signal that this isn't just about trans women and trans men. As somebody who isn't solely a trans man, it's weird to me that people have almost demanded that I just... ignore that, because it "isn't close to cisness." I added the asterisk for brevity and to signal that it's also about transfem people, transmasc people, transneutral people, genderqueers, genderfreaks, and whomever else I am not mentioning (memory loss gang, rise with me on this one).

Maybe you aren't a fan of how I indicated that difference (which is not what I have an issue with), but I truly do not appreciate being told that me acknowledging that trans men and trans women aren't the only people in this community is transphobic. If you aren't a fan of the asterisk, don't use it because that's completely neutral. But don't go after trans people who use it for literally non-transphobic reasons. Trans women and trans men are important members of the community, but they are not the only people who are trans in this space.

This will be my only response about this because I do think an explanation of my thought process in that post and posts like this would be helpful. But I'm drawing a firm boundary with how I'm talked to. This type of engagement is incredibly upsetting to me, and while I understand the aversion you may have to my language, I'm not going to be okay with being spoken to like this.

[silicon-tmblr]

What are some Sexuality headcanons you have for danganronpa

Ohhhh I have so much to say you have no idea

I'll go with my DRV3 post-game headcanons because that's generally what I think about!

Shuichi: Disaster bi. I recently had the thought that he'd actually be awesome as nonbinary, but I feel like he's the type to realize that in his mid 30s or something

Kaito: Bigger disaster bi than Shuichi somehow. I like to think that, while he's iffy/confused about gay people, he accepts trans people without a thought (he's just like "oh you're actually a guy/girl! okay") and just demands that they "act like their gender" bahaha

Ryoma: I know this is a controversial thing to say but. Straight. cis/het. But he's like the biggest and nicest ally ever because well his entire friend group is very queer

Rantaro: I don't see this enough!!!! Aro/ace Rantaro!!! His love hotel is literally him being a tutor with no romantic or sexual undertones!!!! His character concept is probably "playboy with no interest in romance"!! But yeah aro/ace, romance and sex-repulsed

Gonta: Probably pan, but fairly heteronormative. I feel like he gets married in middle age because he's really not searching for a relationship for most of his life and more busy enjoying his hobbies!

Kokichi: Obviously very gay! I generally have him as a trans guy who, due to some shenanigans that happened in his childhood, thought he was a cis guy (until puberty hit and he had to figure out why he was freaking bleeding). Ironically, I like to call him "the cissest of cis guys" haha

Korekiyo: Ace! Not looking for a romantic relationship but I like to think he has a strong platonic partnership with Tenko

Keebo: Aro/ace, romance-positive and sex-neutral. He doesn't experience romantic or sexual attraction but is totally open to a romantic relationship. Intersex and he/him nonbinary, but he generally keeps it to himself and only tells people he trusts

Kirumi: Gay gay lesbian gay. She loves GL (Girl's love genre) but keeps it a secret

Himiko: Aromantic and bisexual! She tends more towards girls than guys

Maki: PSA Maki is gay and was straightwashed when they put her in Danganronpa 53. I mean, Tsumugi really said "I made you fall in love with a guy for plot!" I like to think Maki gets out of DRV3 and her first thought is "why was I straight" (for legal reasons this is a joke and bi Maki believers are based but. gay maki)

Tenko: Bi Tenko bi Tenko I KNOW people insist she's a lesbian (and you people are based) buuut I think even in Danganronpa Tenko is bi. People don't choose who they're attracted to, so her being raised to hate men doesn't mean she can't be attracted to them! Okay that's my ted talk about bi tenko

Tsumugi: Her orientation is none of your business (is what she will say, but I will expose her as the bisexual she is)

Angie: Pan! Kinda heteronormative but she learns not to be

Miu: Pan. I think she would meet someone on the internet that she clicks super well with and then they fly out to meet each other and get married

Kaede: Lesbian! So lesbian. I will insist forever that she isn't actually interested in Shuichi and is just super awkward around him because she doesn't want to lead him on when she's gay

That's it for V3! I don't have as many for the other games, mostly since I'm not as interested in or familiar with them (I like to joke that V3 has the gayest cast and everyone in DR2 is straight (obviously untrue, the irrefutable evidence: Nagito)), but here's a few I like:

Chiaki: Trans girl! She's also straight bahaha

Hiyoko: I used to think she'd be the type to act homophobic "as a joke" but then I realized she's super gay. She'd probably still act homophobic though

Nagito: Bi, for the sole reason of: I think he should date Chiaki

Akane: Seems ace!

Mahiru: I think she's straight, but she's a total lesbian magnet

Hajime: Bi (duh). Cursed to be maidenless

Chihiro: Nonbinary, he/they in conversation but always they/them in writing

Junko: This lady is very heterosexual and cisgender

Mukuro: Bi

Makoto: Bi

I also like to joke that all the girls in DR1 are straight and all the boys in DR1 are gay because everyone is in love with Makoto (obviously false because there are some very gay girls and not so gay dudes)

[silverity]

"science says that human beings are either female or male" science is a tool used and defined by humans (and the societies/cultures they live in) to interpret the world around them. claiming "x is objective fact because Science Says So" is an extremely lazy argument (& implies that there is just one singular belief to be drawn from whatever is being researched in the first place). what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into "male" and "female"? who benefits from the enforcement of "male" and "female" categories? what traits do we ascribe to these categories and why?

im not claiming science is completely objective. as you've said, cultural biases can affect the way things are interpreted and understood. women know this more than anyone with the way biological essentialism has been used to define us as physically inferior and solely in existence only to reproduce. i'm also Black, and well aware of scientific racism and the history of pseudoscience claiming we are racially inferior on account of our skulls. so you really don't have to tell me anything about this.

what isn't a product of the biases of human culture or human society, however, is that humans are either one of the two sexes or a rare variation of the two. science is empirical observation, and we have observed this to be true, not just in humans but in other mammalian species. it's not a product of human society if it exists and is observable in nature. our interpretation and understanding of the two sexes, however, is what can become distorted through biases or misinterpretation. a good example being how scientists determined sperm in fertilization "conquers" the egg, but modern studies suggest the egg is actually extremely selective, and entraps/pulls the sperm inside. right? nobody can disagree humans don't reproduce via eggs and sperm. it's the interpretation of the process of it that is affected by cultural bias— particularly the assumption that anything female is inherently passive, and anything male must be active/aggressive.

"what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into male and female?".

most radfems, and a lot of marxfems such as myself, support gender abolition. sex, in our view, is a neutral thing that exists in nature and need not say anything about how you should behave or of your role in society. it is only through the social imposition of gender (which radfems define as a system of hierarchy of males over females and everything that reinforces this, not an innate identity as trans people would say) and it's maintenance via the enforcement of "femininity" (infantilization, sexualisation, submission) for women and of "masculinity" (aggression, control, dominance) for men, that certain traits, roles, behaviours are assigned to men and women. natural sex and it's observation through science do not assign any traits to the sexes. since humans have evolved to become civilized social beings we are no longer ruled by our animal instincts or natural biology.

so in relation to your latter questions, i think we are probably in agreement? we both disagree with the current social order of the sexes, but we disagree about how to eradicate this. the pro-trans side argues in favour of gender identity and the irrelevance of sex. but this doesn't really do away with gender stereotypes, does it? it just allows a few to switch to the opposite side of the gender binary. and making sex irrelevant (though, interestingly, "gender affirming care" is completely about mimicking biological sex markers associated with your "gender identity", so that's rather contradictory) would serve only to invisibilize women's oppression, which unfortunately occurs on a sexual basis. if you disagree that women's oppression is rooted in how men have sought to control and police women's reproduction and sexuality, please read some radical or marxist feminist theory.

the radfem side argues that treating gender as an "identity" in the trans way naturalizes the traits ascribed to the sexes as innate qualities to the sexes. womanhood is femininity, such that any feminine man or man who prefers feminine forms of expression is really a woman. & manhood is masculinity, such that any masculine women or women who wear their hair short are really men. this idea of "gender identity" also tries to pretend women are only oppressed because we adhere to femininity, so it's our own fault for not simply "opting out" of femininity and womanhood as "trans men" do. and when "trans women" present as feminine, they are oppressed just as women are. neither are true, when masculine-presenting women still face female oppression (including "trans men") and femininity (worn by the "trans woman") is only demeaned because the female body it is assigned to is demeaned. "trans women" may experience oppression bc of their gender non-conformity as males but never female oppression nor anything of female experiences.

the radfem position is that you can dress however you want and express yourself however you want, but on the basis of your sex you are still either a man or a woman. man = male human, woman = female human, that's all these terms should mean. we should stop gendering the sexes, essentially. we think gender dysphoria (as in genuine distress over your natural sex and a disconnect with your physical body) is a condition resulting from the oppressive system of gender that restricts both women and men, and think people should receive treatment, not affirmation. there's no issue with gender non-conformity, and if anything radfems encourage gnc especially where femininity is concerned, only that it is harmful to insist your gender non-conformity as a man makes you a woman. men are not the default of the species and women are not non-men, we are not an identity for men to claim when they feel repressed by other men or the standards of masculinity.

intersex people are the only people who may be assigned the wrong sex at birth, and i realise this is probably a very complicated experience for them and so im not really interested in policing what intersex people consider themselves. but most intersex people can still be defined as either male or female in terms of their biology (and so male intersex people should not enter women's sports, for example). the language of "AFAB/AMAB" has been bastardized and taken from the intersex community and applied to people who are NOT in any way intersex. for the rest of us our sex is not wrongly assigned, it is correctly observed.

in an ideal world sex should not be important beyond healthcare, sports, and other instances where it is necessary to take into account the physical differences between men and women e.g. for the safety of passengers in vehicles, which is commonly tested using only larger male measurements. while we still live in a society where women are oppressed on the basis of sex, it is necessary to recognise sex in order to combat this exploitation and inequality, via safeguarding women and female children, providing safe single-sex spaces (something the UN describes as essential in ensuring women have a right to public life), opportunities for women to boost our representation and participation in society, policies aimed at assisting women in male-dominated careers and so on. this is essentially the same thing as recognising the reality of race and how non-white people face disadvantages and discrimination. just as it would not help Black people to invisibilize the social reality of race (note the SCOTUS has just struck down affirmative action on the basis of race) it would not help women to invisibilize sex, nor the sexual dynamics (the threat and reality of sexual assault, abuse, sexual exploitation) that exist between men and women.