#Pretty sure i am the ONLY person concerned aout this

[rubyneko]

Ok, I love everything about Michael Burnham, and Star Trek Discovery in general, but one thing is bugging me....

A year.

She waited for Disco for a year.

HAIR DOES NOT GROW THAT MUCH IN A YEAR! IT’S ALMOST DOWN TO HER ELBOWS that shit takes YEARS! I have short hair and if I grew it for a year it would get just past my shoulders. It took my son 4 years to grow his hair to his elbows and he’s SHORT! Agsjdjxjddjjxjdjxjd this should not be bugging me as much as it is.

I just. Don’t see Michael Burnham ducking out in the 32nd century to get some hair extensions IT IS ILLOGICAL!

[transmascrage]

make it make sense: how does a transmasc person say “trans men are only oppressed because of misogyny!” and then say “trans men benefit from misogyny actually”. i am so frustrated. i wish transmascs could like embrace each other more fully instead of telling each other to just shush be quiet don’t rock the boat when it comes to talking about specific oppression. why do we do this to each other, why do we regurgitate queer theory made by non transmascs without us in mind in order to describe transmascness to ourselves rather than listening to each other. why is everything concerning transmascs worded to please the sensibilities of non transmascs. urgh

Good question. To be honest, I think there's so many factors it's hard to explain in full detail.

On the one hand, the idea that men are the oppressors (which isn't completely wrong) lack nuance and it's never challenged past a "But trans men are better!" which not everyone says.

I've seen people say pretty vile shit towards trans men, because we're men and that makes us the oppressor.

There's also the idea that trans men have it easier than others in the trans community.

I've seen the argument that it's easier to pass for trans men, that we don't need as many surgery or that ours are better... or that "once we pass" (like it's everyone's objective) we gain male privilege and become undistinguishable from cis men.

And the thing is, none of these things are necessarily wrong, it's just that making broad generalisations on the ftm or transmasc community can only make a mess. Our communities are made to include people with any gender identities outside of the cis binary, so generalising will literally never work.

And bringing these arguments up whenever trans men and transmascs are just trying to talk aout their experiences is a dick move.

Also there are the more unhinged people who straight up say trans men can systematically oppress trans women or even cis women, but those are the exceptions.

Also there's the idea that, as long as you're hitting the oppressor you can go ahead and swing. Coupled with the recent increase in the belief that oppression must be fought back with violence, and a lot of people forget they're still punching a real human being.

To be clear, you're more than allowed to hit your oppressor. But I think there's a lot of leftists who still haven't unpacked all their prejudice and who expecially get excited at the idea of punishing people with violence.

But they don't actually have nuance, so, for example "guillotine the rich" becomes attacking anyone who's middle class (or that one minority that's always been accused of being secretly rich and powerful.)

"Beat up pedos" becomes attacking queer people when the right spreads false information on us.

"Protect minors" becomes stopping any display of kink at Pride or any mention of sex in our history.

I don't think the oppressed minorities should stay quiet and subservient, and never resort to violence. I just think before we start clocking people, we have to make sure we see the target and won't go crazy with bloodlust (not even in retaliation).

Those kinds of people scare me, because they'll beat a marginalised person up and then convince everyone they did it for a just cause.