#There’s a reason why men would rather be with trans women than cis women

[chrissy-kaos]

Be mad you ugly ass cis bitch. She probably caught her bf watching trans porn 😂 there’s a whole ass reason why we’re better than you. It’s cool though I’ll just come dick down your boyfriend 😉

[doubleca5t]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

see I can tell that this is a bad faith ask because I've been getting an influx of terfs on TikTok lately but I'll take the bait and answer this legitimately. I think the *actual* answer here is that sexuality is complex and even though we put a lot of labels on it, those labels are ultimately never going to account for every possible corner case and so rather than constantly redefining the terms of our sexuality I think it's better if we just embrace the messiness of it all as part of the game.

Like I consider myself a lesbian (and you would probably consider me a straight man) which *should* mean I'm only attracted to women. But I've also found myself attracted to drag queens and femboys and some non-binary folks who identify more on the masculine side of the spectrum. Does that mean I'm actually bisexual? I don't think so, because I don't feel any attraction to dudes (cis or trans) who aren't actively playing with gender in a way that's either flirting with femininity or wholeheartedly embracing it.

I imagine plenty of gay men have a similar experience seeing women who present very masculine or a non-binary person who's more on the femme side. And before you accuse me of insisting that lesbians can be attracted to men, there is a HUGE difference between saying that gender non-conforming people throw a wrench into people's sexual identities and saying that "lesbianism includes men".

In short, the reason why I don't have a definitive clear cut answer to your question is because I think human sexuality defies such an answer. I just so happen to be ok with that because I think it's a better, easier way to live

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

It’s truly sad how gender nonconforming trans men/mascs are still not accepted into the mainstream, are still seen as an embarrassment to the trans community, and are called fakers for exhibiting the same femininity that would be celebrated in a cis queer man. Transmedicalist ideology is often associated with trans men because of the Kalvin Garrah days of the 2010s, but all this does is erases the gnc trans men who fought to exist and still are fighting today. Yes, there were and are plenty of transmed trans men, but it was also mostly trans men and nonbinary transmasculine people who popularized “trendercore” aesthetics to push back to that (aesthetics that are still denounced). People who disavow homophobia against cis gay men freely mock “yaoi brained Aidens.” Let’s remember it wasn’t until Lou Sullivan that gay trans men were allowed to have hormones. The real history and suffering of gay trans men isn’t taken seriously or learned about. Queer people who claim to hate toxic masculinity take a lot of joy in forcing it onto trans men in a way they don’t onto anyone else, but trans men are seen as acceptable targets for being “cringe.” On the other side, trans men who do succumb under the weight of this pressure and adapt toxic masculinity for themselves are ruthlessly derided for it by the same people who forced that onto them in the first place. And often trans men can be called toxically masculine just for being uncomfortable with feminine things for themselves, which devalues the real issue of the transmedicalists who actually are uncomfortable with gnc trans men.

There’s a really prevalent idea in society and the queer community that being a man has to be about stoic suffering, which is similar to the ways people say that being a woman has to be about suffering so trans women can’t be women without a uterus, or whatever suffering requirement they have for womanhood. Gender is not about freedom of expression, it is about responsibility and sacrifice - sound familiar? So, a trans man who is confident in being a man without fitting toxic masculine expectations freaks people out even if they think they don’t have toxic masculinity to unpack, and they subconsciously or consciously push that onto trans men rather than examining themselves for even a second.

The idea of the trender is also a reason transmasculine people get gatekept from trans spaces. People see trans men’s manhood, transness, and experiences of misogyny as fake! This gives transmasculinity no space to exist at all. While people perpetuate this idea that trans men could never be really men, or really trans, or really understand so-called “women’s issues,” they also specifically say that trans men don’t understand what it is like to be read as a gnc man, while simultaneously mocking gnc trans men for just existing. These are all very similar arguments to the ones used against trans women being women — gnc trans men are lying that they’re trans to get into trans spaces when they’re just delusional cishet girls, gnc trans men could never understand how hard it is to be “socialized” as a gnc man, gay trans men are trying to force their boyfriends to be gay or force themselves onto cis gay men, gay trans men are pornbrained fetishists who want to look like little boys, trans men who talk about their experiences with reproductive rights are trying to play the victim to hurt women — but you will hear these arguments from people who claim to support all trans people.

All of these phenomena I think are why there is so much pushback to language for transmasculine oppression. Because in order to follow the transmedicalist framework and assimilate, you have to be exactly like a cis person of your gender. Cis men aren’t oppressed for being men, so trans men can’t be oppressed for being men. It’s a completely cis-centric take that ignores reality. Trans men’s experiences do not have to conform to anyone’s idea of what it is to be a man to be valid.

[commsroom]

as an extension of how hera reads as trans to me, hera/eiffel resonates with me specifically as a relationship between a trans woman and a cis man. loving hera requires eiffel to decentralize his own perspective in a way that ties into both his overall character arc and the themes of the show.

pop culture is baked into the dna of wolf 359, into eiffel’s worldview, and in how it builds off of a sci-fi savvy audience’s assumptions: common character types, plot beats, or dynamics, why would a real person behave this way? how would a real person react to that? eiffel is the “everyman” who assumes himself to be the default. hera is the “AI who is more human than a lot of humans,” but it doesn’t feel patronizing because it isn’t a learned or moral quality; she is a fundamentally human person who is routinely dehumanized and internalizes that.

eiffel/hera as a romance is compelling to me because there is a narrative precedent for some guy/AI or robot woman relationships in a way i think mirrors some attitudes about trans women: it’s a male power fantasy about a subclass of women, or it’s a cautionary tale, or it’s a deconstruction of a power fantasy that criticizes the way men treat women as subservient, as property. but what does that pop culture landscape mean in the context of desire? If you are a regular person, attracted to a regular person, who really does care for you and wants to do right by you, but is deeply saturated in these expectations? how do you navigate that?

I think that, in itself, is an aspect of communication worth exploring. sometimes you won’t get it. sometimes you can’t. and that’s not irreconcilable, either. it’s something wolf 359 is keenly aware of, and, crucially, always sides with hera on. eiffel screws up. he says insensitive things without meaning to. often, hera will call him out on it, and he will defer to her. in the one case where he notably doesn’t, the show calls attention to it and makes him reflect. it’s not a coincidence that the opening of shut up and listen has eiffel being particularly dismissive of hera - the microaggression of separating her from “men and women” and the insistence on using his preferred title over hers. there are things eiffel has just never considered before, and caring for hera the way he does means he has to consider them. he's never met someone like hera, but media has given him a lot of preconceptions about what people like her might be like.

there’s a whole other discussion to be had about the gender dynamics of wolf 359, even in the ways the show tries to avoid directly addressing them, and how sexual autonomy in particular can’t fully be disentangled from explorations of AI women. i don’t think eiffel fully recognizes what comments like “wind-up girl” imply, and the show is not prepared to reconcile with it, but it’s interesting to me. in the context of transness (and also considering hera’s disability, two things i think need to be discussed together), i think it’s worth discussing how hera’s self image is at odds with the way people perceive her, her disconnect from physicality, how she can’t be touched by conventional means, and the ways in which eiffel and hera manage to bridge that gap.

even the desire for embodiment, and the autonomy and type of intimacy that comes with it, means something different when it’s something she has to fight for, to acquire, to become accustomed to, rather than a circumstance of her birth. i suppose the reason i don’t care for half measures in discussions re: hera and embodiment is also because, to me, it is in many ways symbolically a discussion about medical transition, and the social fear of what’s “lost” in transition, whether or not those things were even desired in the first place.

hera’s relationship with eiffel is unquestionably the most supportive and equal one she has, but there are still privileges, freedoms, and abilities he has that she doesn’t, and he forgets that sometimes. he will never share her experiences, but he can choose to defer to her, to unlearn his pop culture biases and instead recognize the real person in front of him, and to use his own privilege as a shield to advocate for her. the point, to me - what’s meaningful about it - is that love isn’t about inherent understanding, it’s about willingness to listen, and to communicate. and that’s very much at the heart of the show.

[hillbillyoracle]

So I saw this screencap earlier

And I thought it was a great chance to talk about something.

A lot of progressive folks are familiar with the fact that right wing circles use feminine as a derogatory term and that there's a real cost to that for women.

What people are less familiar with is how it hurts men - queer and straight, cis and trans.

And I'm not shocked given how common it is in left leaning spaces to be reactionary (read: dismissive or outright harass) when men try to talk about these what these issues look like for them.

When men talk about how they've experienced toxic masculinity and anti-feminine bias, in addition to the usual right wing responses, I'm starting to see a bunch of supposed feminists and trans/queer allies harass them as well - saying they're hurting women/feminine presenting folks by "centering men", dismissing their concerns as made up (even when there's research to back it up), "why aren't you talking about what this is like for cis and trans women instead??".

I've seen trans men accused of being TERFs or being liars (by other trans people even - wtf) when they talk about their experiences of allies actively excluding them from trans spaces or harassing them for using T4T tags. I've seen men be accused of lying about publicly accessible clinical research that shows men make up 75%-77% of suicide cases - or worse suggest they deserve it. I see posts about how men's complaints "aren't unique to them" and dismiss them because women also suffer things those authors assume are the same (even when the research contradicts this).

And here's the thing:

When you assume feminine=good/safe/gentle and masculine=bad/unsafe/enemy - you're parroting a conservative talking point.

There is no way around this fact.

A big part of what underpins child rearing being "the woman's domain" in conservatism, is the idea that men are inherently dangerous and therefore shouldn't really be around children without women present.

The reason why they blame women for abuse and rape - because they believe men are inherently dangerous and if a woman trusted them then it's her fault.

Part of why women have been effectively banned from many trades and careers for so long is the assumption that being around that many men presents an inherent danger to a woman.

"But!" you might be saying, "This person is clearly talking about men engaging in open conflict as good here!"

Yeah because conservatives see politics as an inherently male/dangerous/toxic sphere and uphold it as such.

I could go on and on really.

All of this is to say - please be more thoughtful in what you consume, comment, and reblog.

There are experiences specific to being masculine. Erasing that is one, a dick move, but two, particularly violent toward those talking about trans masculine, minority masculine, disabled masculine, and queer masculine experiences.

All privilege comes at a cost. Listening when people talk about that cost is key building a new more fair reality. Seeing the privilege is not worth the cost makes fervent allies. Want more allies? Don't be a dick to people having that realization.

Push back against the assumption of woman=good and man=bad when you see it - especially in community spaces. The amount of times I've seen domestic violence services only available to women is insane...

Do not let identarian politics blind you to the fact we're all human and working toward our own liberation should not come at the oppression of another. Believe me, those with real power would much rather you stay raging out at men in a similar class with you than directing your efforts at them.

The right wing wants you to believe it's either/or. Fuck that - it's both/and.

[crazy-pages]

Blue Eyed Samurai and Queer Gender

There's a reason so many trans people keep reading trans identity into Mizu.

Because even if she's cis, her gender is still queer.

Lemme back up for a second. Queer identity is deeply intertwined with experiencing sex and gender in ways which are fundamentally non-normative and non-conformative for the societies we live in. It is about being "other" to what society's default is. There are reasons that queer liberation movements have historically often allied with kink communities, with polyamorous circles, and with feminist movements. There's overlap there, in being outside a tightly constrained norm and demanding equality and recognition. And this also means that what queer is, is defined in part by the society it stands in opposition to.

Because for contrast there have been societies, historically, which have been fully accepting of trans people or even had specific social norms and customs around nonbinary gender. The colonizing Spaniards found and recorded interactions (typically violent, sadly) with trans people in what's now Mexico who lived, married, and were recognized in their societies without regard for their genitals. There are entire fields of study around various historical recognition of nonbinary identities. None of these people existed in opposition to the societies they lived in. Heck if we look at sexuality, the ancient Greeks would certainly not have seen men having sex with men as queer (though they would have judged and demeaned the bottom), but some of them certainly pathologized women who had sex with women. In such a society bisexual men would not be queer, while bisexual women would be.

Queer is contextual. Someone who lives in a fully accepting society as a trans person, who never has contact with a culture where that acceptance isn't the norm? I'm not sure I would call them queer. At the very least, there's a definition of queer as the embrace of one's sexual and/or gender non-normativity which such a person might very well not opt into. That person might not feel queer. We might not share that emotional experience.

And where this comes back to Blue Eyed Samurai is that it's possible to be cis and to be marked unavoidably and unalterably queer by one's society. A cis woman living in the US today who feels absolutely cis but cannot, for whatever reason, stand wearing dresses and must wear pants? Might experience some gender non-conforming experiences, but not necessarily be queer. That same woman in 1890s US? Her gender expression would be outright illegal as a form of crossdressing. She would be seen with the same lens as a trans man and their experiences of gender would both be queer, despite one being cis and one being trans. If such a woman, despite being cis and straight and allosexual and alloromantic and all the rest, told me she felt queer? It would not surprise me in the least.

So if you define queer as any kind of experience or internal feeling, as a state of othered existence rather than a specific set of prescriptive definitional boxes that fit our specific societal norms and practices? Mizu is queer. Mizu might or might not be queer if you transplanted her into the 2020s US where I live. But to define her by how she would fit in our society's boxes is fundamentally missing the point of both the queer experience and the story of Blue Eyed Samurai. (And she might not be cis here, he might be a trans man, or they might be nonbinary. It's hard to say ... and this is why queer history scholars step carefully around modern definitions, by the by.)

What we can say is that who Mizu is, in the context of Edo period Japan, is queer. Whether Mizu is genderfluid, or a trans man, or a cis woman who hates having to be undercover, or a cis woman who thrives being undercover, or a cis woman performing drag, or a trans man who thinks of himself as a woman in drag because he lacks context for being transgender? It's all queer gender. There is no framing in which Mizu wouldn't relate to the experience of queer gender.

Mizu doesn't get to experience gender in a normative way. That's both because of who she is at her core, and something that's defined by society without her consent. She is queer, innately born so and structurally made so at the same time, and that's not a contradiction.

[boreal-sea]

Firstly: get dunk'd, transphobe.

Secondly, nice source, dipshit:

I have to do everything, don't I?

Let's talk about this source before we even read this article, because it shows how poor your rhetorical analysis skills are - or how unwilling you are to practice those skills, or perhaps just how willing you are to ally yourself with racist, nationalist, far-right reactionaries if they also happen to be transphobic.

Wings Over Scotland is a far-right, nationalist, reactionary blog run by Scottish "video game journalist" Stuart Campbell. It is not an unbiased news website - it's some dude's personal blog, and he created it because he hated that mainstream news in Scotland wasn't spreading the far-right rhetoric he wished it would.

And this is what you used as a "source". Fucking laughable.

Now let's get into the actual blog post. I refuse to call it a "news article", because it's not. This one was written by a nobody named "Mar Vickers". At the bottom of the article, Stuart claims Mar has "extensive experience in equality law". I can't seem to find any indication Mar is some sort of lawyer or scholar; all I can find is a link to his twitter - sorry, I mean his "X":

https://twitter.com/mar2vickers

You can tell this is the same Mar based on the content of his tweets. He's also transphobic garbage, surprise surprise. He has a backup account on "gettr", because it seems like his twitter gets suspended frequently - which says a lot. Gettr is a clone of twitter that caters to right wingers who get suspended and banned on Twitter for constantly violating its hate speech policies. So. You know. Though these days, X is the safe-haven for far-right reactionaries, so honestly that's a red flag period.

As a summary: Mar doesn't understand surveys or their limits, he doesn't define what a "sex crime" is, he doesn't know what the Rorschach test is, and he's bad at math. He plays with numbers like he's some sort of population statistician, which he's not. He draws conclusions that are completely nonsense, because he's not asking the relevant questions.

Basically, he states that over the past few years, the ratio of trans women in jail for sex crimes to compared to the general population of trans woman is now higher than the ratio of cis men in jail for sex crimes compared to the general population of cis men. Ok, but why did these numbers change? He doesn't ask why. He just assumes these trends are natural and reflect the behavior of cis men and trans women, rather than the increased transphobia in England and Wales that he and his buddy Stuart have been fueling.

I absolutely don't doubt that trans women are incarcerated for "sex crimes" (which he never defines of course) at a higher rate per population than cis men. It's the same reason people of color are incarcerated more per population: bigotry. "Wow, this population of people who society hates sure gets sent to jail a lot. That's probably a reflection of their true nature, and not a reflection on society at large!"

[unb1nding-t-b0y]

Transphobia/ micro aggression idk story cuz I see a lot of posts talking about transandrophobia but not as many stories about experiencing it. (Maybe it's just my Tumblr algorithm but regardless posting will hopefully help that too)

Anyways I'm 21 recently started transitioning and I've been performing at a drag place for a little bit. This elder queen (I don't even remember her name I think she was trans but with drag queens that have spent their lives In Drag it can be difficult to tell even when you hear them talk about themselves because many of these people kinda use male and female names pronouns etc interchangeably etc. I'll use she -her pronouns in the story because I'd rather not accidentally misgender a trans women and ik she doesn't care about being she/hered even if she is a cis gay) Anyways she asks bout me and I tell her my name, pronouns, and identity as one does in queer spaces. Upon hearing I was a trans masc she immediately feels the need to tell me the story of the time she *gasp* almost slept with a trans man. The story goes like this.

Shes at a drag night in some bar and a drag king approaches her and they hit it off. Shes into him and vice versa. They ditch the bar and make out in a car somewhere and when it's getting hot and heavy the dude pulls his strap out and tells her he wants to fuck her. All standard shit. But she goes on and on about how surprised and disgusted she was at both the fact that she's been fooling round with a "woman" and how off-putting it was to even suggest a BOTTOM get fucked with a dildo. She picks up. A. Drag. King. And gets surprised when he's trans. If a lesbian went to a drag night and picked up a trans woman and reacted in the same way people would call her an idiot for not bothering to have the critical thinking skills to consider that maybe that person performing gender up there is performing a different gender than they were assigned at birth. (Side note if you're gonna pick someone up without knowing anything about them you can't be mad about surprises. I swing both ways so a surprise is just fine for me but if you have a severe genital preference maybe fucking ask people before you're making out with them and wanting to fuck. Sorry you hate dildos but you should have checked, and honestly even if it's a cis dude you should at least try to verify that they get tested + use protection etc

Unfortunately the majority of drag kings I've run into have been CIS men. The place I'm in is very supportive and kind to cis men doing bare minimum performances (no choreography, no makeup, usually the dude just takes his shirt off at some point and that alone is enough to be praiseworthy. Or he wears a suit stands around and barely lip-syncs ) whereas drag kings that aren't cis or arent men are more often than not treated as outsiders.

The story also cemented what I was afraid of that ultimately I was viewed as an invader of the space. That for some reason cis queens and cis kings are more acceptable in a space that was pioneered by trans women and drag queens. The trans drag shows Ive gone to haven't had any trans men in them unless they are open call. It's hurtful it's alienating and it's frustrating. I AM STILL TRANS. IF YOUR TRANS INCLUSIVE SPACE ISNT INCLUSIVE OF ME ITS NOT INCLUSIVE. It's frustrating that as a trans man when I enter "trans friendly gay bars" I'm often treated like an annoying presence getting in the way of everyone else's dicks only zone. Sorry I don't have a cock but that shouldn't be a requirement to occupy these spaces and you can't call yourself trans inclusive when you really mean just cis gays and trans girls. At the time I couldn't really articulate how fucked up what she said was so I just kinda said some non offensive topic change and moved on but like most of the other queens ignored or avoided me and that moment I figured out why I always felt like the odd one out. Because I was.

[loveless-arobee]

I am extremely sick of trans allies and other trans people alike just repeating terf rhetoric when it comes to trans men and transmascs.

Like. Good, you learnt how to recognise terf dogwhistles when it comes to transfems. Cool. Why are you still repeating the lie that there somehow is an epidemic of women transitioning into trans men because of "internalised misogyny"? Why are you repeating the lie that all women want to be men because of patriarchy and misogyny, therefore trans men can’t know for sure they’re trans men, ever, actually? Why the fuck are you repeating the lie that there is somehow suddenly a massive influx of detransitioners because of that? (There isn’t. There’s a few right wing grifters that got made into cash-cows. But those exist within every single group ever. Detransitioning women aren’t a special case, and most of them aren’t even fucking transphobic. You just only see the ones that are.)

And why do you think the conclusion that we we should therefore make transition for transmasculine people even harder so those poor little women (trans men) don’t mistake their internalised misogyny for gender dysphoria :( those stupid little girls (again, trans men!) don’t know what they’re doing, we’re just trying to protect them! They’re to stupid to differentiate between their misogynistic selfhate and gender dysphoria. We must make sure they don’t make a massive mistake by ~destroying their beautiful feminine bodies~ with transitioning, so we must make sure only real trans men get access to trans health care. And of course it’s up to us, women, to decide who is a real man and who is a dumb little "woman" who needs to be protected from herself.

???

The fuck.

Why did I just hear a TRANS WOMAN of all people say this? I knew cis women fall for terf rhetoric all the time (especially this kind, because somehow people understand that when terfs say men they actually mean trans women, but don’t get that sometimes, when they say girls or women, they mean trans men…) and I stopped being surprised or pissed at that a long time ago. I’m just tired of these supposedly well meaning cis women by now. But other trans people? I expect better of my own community.

Like, yes. Most cis women will have the experience of wishing they'd be treated with the same respect as cis men. But if that wish is not "I want to be treated with respect" but "I wish I was a man" that probably isn't a cis woman talking! And you shouldn't tell that to them. "Oh, that's normal - every cis woman feels they'd be much happier as a man and hates their bodies! That's just misogyny!" Not they do not. Please allow trans men and transmascs to exist. These "women" could be much happier if you allowed them to question their gender and to life as the gender they actually are, not tell them they're just depressed cis women and there's nothing they can do about it.

Every cis woman in my life knows very surely they are women and don't want to be men. They just do not like how they're treated because of it. But they want to be treated better *as women*.

(Also: all of this rhetoric is just completely ignoring the fact that trans men suffer from so much more misogyny than cis women, plus transphobia on top of it. Which is. Not good. And part of the reason why transmasculine people have the highest rate of sexual and domestic abuse rates among every gender group and no one does anything about it because they just assume that we're men so therefore nothing bad will ever happen do usand just forget that we're specifically trans men. But they make this assumption and therefore do not listen to us. Trans "allies" and other trans people would really rather listen to cis women (who are totally not transphobic /s) about OUR experiences or make completely baseless assumption than listen to trans men. Really fucked up.)

[seriousbrat]

100% agree on the last post! James is the norm in terms of teenage boys in his society, unfortunately that is not speaking much of that society considering he’s blackmailing his crush through doing harm to her friend and pantsing people. Which is honestly the problem, that specific behavior isn’t seen as an issue it’s the other stuff he does (his arrogance is what’s mostly focused on by the other characters). Looking at violence and gender in that society and how it functions, I really don’t think James is transgressing any of these norms but falling right into them. Which again is the problem. His behavior is a product of the culture which shaped him, that’s not an excuse, but it is an explanation.

Exactly. Like on a scale from Woke Feminist King to Inbetweener, I think James would have been decent enough, average, like I said, maybe even a little bit better than average because of his sense of 'honour' or whatever lol. But not that much.

Also, I know people might not agree with this but I do think the WW is less misogynistic than the Muggle. I think this is logical in a society where magical ability is what primarily contributes to raw labour rather than physical strength. Not to get Marxism 101 on everyone but if we look at the origins of patriarchy as based in the Agricultural Revolution, the division of labour following the emergence of private property (men work in fields, women produce men to work fields, men accumulate resources) is somewhat lessened if everyone can use magic equally, and when women can defend themselves very effectively against becoming the resources that are accumulated.

I say somewhat because yes, women (cis women, I don't think we can expect neolithic farmers or Engels to be trans inclusive haha) are still the ones who can give birth. Obviously for this reason (and also because of influence from the Muggle world) the WW is still a patriarchy and misogyny does still exist, just slightly less acutely than in the real world, and women have an easier time advancing within it.

(((In pureblood society, because they value bloodlines and heirs, there is undoubtedly more misogyny. But we know from pottermore that pureblood supremacy is a relatively recent advent, certainly much more recent than the Agricultural Revolution and the emergence of private property haha. I can imagine that misogyny grew stronger alongside pureblood supremacy quite naturally. This is why Narcissa acts more as a handmaids tale esque wife to Lucius than Lily or Tonks or even Molly and Fleur, who are still housewives themselves.)))

I think there's evidence of women generally faring a bit better in the WW, such as female Ministers long, loooong before Muggle women even had the vote, and culturally I think this is reflected too:

From the intro to Beedle the Bard, which goes on to talk about 'The Warlock's Hairy Heart' in which the female character does have a passive role, so it's not like this is unheard of, just a bit less common. In 'The Fountain of Fair Fortune,' the aforementioned Asha, Altheda, and Amata are all much more useful and powerful and active characters than Sir Luckless who basically just follows them around. (I actually really like that story, and 'Hairy Heart' is delightfully creepy. Probably my faves.) James would have grown up with these stories.

Anyway this got VERY off track but for for this reason too, I think James and the other Marauders would probably be a little bit better than their Muggle equivalents, but also not perfect. Just like Ron, to whom it's perfectly normal that Hermione would be top in everything and that Gwenog Jones ('THE Gwenog Jones') would be someone to idolise, but he also displays misogyny such as when he calls Hermione a 'scarlet woman' lol. As do others. (For contrast, ask an average teen boy in our world to name 3 female football players. Yeah.)

And yes maybe some of it is jkr's learnt misogyny leaking through too, from growing up in a patriarchy along with the rest of us (and let's be objective about this, she has been a victim of it too, very much so.) But personally I think the WW still being misogynistic but slightly better than irl actually ends up being realistically relatable while also providing a level of escapism and aspiration for young girls. It doesn't feel that inconsistent to me but idk. Hermione easily outstripping her male peers in intelligence and talent, Ginny and other female Quidditch players being on the level of men and often better, and this just being accepted, was inspiring for me, anyway.

[genderqueerdykes]

opinion on twinks ? i feel like they are ONLY used to joke abt and then throw under the bus and it makes me extremely upset as someone who identifies as one . i feel like im the only one who cares

opinion on twinks: wonderful, radiant, a gift to our society, desired, loved, needed, appreciated

i agree with you, actually- i used to be friends with some transfeminine people who genuinely thought it was funny to say they were "twinkphobic" and meant it- they genuinely would go on and on about how they hated twinks because i guess? people would confuse them for twinks, which is not the twinks' faults, but rather transmisogynistic society's fault. i don't get the hatred, i really don't, and even as a bear i felt so uncomfortable around these women when they'd go on these rants, as a gay man. i'm transfeminine, but the gay community is my community, and i'm not okay with people throwing any gays under the bus, for any reason.

there's nothing wrong with being a thin effeminate queer person, people really just love to show they asses especially when it comes to straight up being homophobic. people will love to clamor and say they love gay men but then instantly throw twinks under the bus and then go on to say that bears are gross and hunks aren't gay. people love to be homophobic and pretend like they arent; like gays can't win, even among other queers, people find ways to bully and mock us, make us feel bad for expressing ourselves and berate gays for how they choose to dress, look and act. it's not cute, it's not funny, it's literal homophobia.

also every person who gives thin and/or pre-T transmascs & trans men shit for being twinks deserves to get smacked at least 150 times. if you are claiming that you dislike twinks because of transmascs, i need you to think long and hard about why the hell you're so transandrophobic and how you can afford to take a long walk far, far away from queer spaces until you sort that shit out. there are just as many if not more cis twinks than transmasc twinks, knock that shit right the hell off, also don't call trans men twinks in order to emasculate them, because it's not even an insult in the first place.

most thin people don't choose to be thin, why the hell are we body shaming people? even if someone is choosing to be thin, oh well? that's how they want their body to look? they may also be struggling with an ED, which deserves compassion? or maybe feel guilty about their body in a fatphobic society, which also deservse compassion? oh you hate men/mascs/people who meticulously groom and care about their presentation? that's literally what cishet men rag on gays for. can we talk about this?

i've heard some people say they hate twinks because twinks are the "socially acceptable gays"- that's not even true, what the hell does that even mean? cishet society still hates twinks, just because occasionally an effeminate skinny white cis gay man becomes successful doesn't mean that twinks are accepted by cishet society- they're not. it's not okay to bully and abuse twinks just because they have a marginally smaller chance of being hate crimed

so basically what i'm saying is this shit makes me angry and i'm with you, i care, and i don't think it's funny to throw any type of queer under the bus, it's literally just punching down on other queers and it's not helping. great to know some people still have internalized queerphobias and have zero intention of getting past them, but that's not where i'm at. i'm not here for creating hostile and violent spaces

[skaldish]

Hi there, hope all’s well! 🌷

I just came across your post about the emotional starvation of (cis) boys (excellent visualization of what the majority of boys/men go through from the get go).

In my day to day life I offer services and rituals to celebrate and honor women in ways that the world often has not; and I work to be all inclusive (nb, trans, and whatever might fall in between or outside of that). This work uses, showcases, AND teaches this feeling of sorority/sisterhood/community safety.

In order to balance out towards the other side—because I have been saying this same thing about boys and men missing this vital bit of living, and therefor perpetuating the rift between men and women whether they want to or not— I’ve started apprenticing as a barber. This seems to me to be one of the “softest” self care rituals men indulge in.

Would you say, in your experience, that this type of self care and perhaps the celebration/ritualization of milestones could help boys and men interact in healthier ways with their own masculinity, and the world at large?

I mean…yes and no.

Yes, because rituals and rites are nourishment for the soul, and no, because the kind of approach you're suggesting is designed to address systemic marginalization rather than systemic isolation. The reason why you don't already see cis men seek empowerment in relation to their gender because they don't need to be.

Instead, what they covet is to belong in despite of it.

See, the way we raise boys—and the experiences boys have growing into men—teach and reinforce this specific narrative:

"It doesn't matter who I am as a person, what my personality is like, or how strong of a bond someone forms with me; the moment I'm [too girly / too manly / not manly enough / the wrong kind of man / etc] my belonging is revoked and I'm disowned."

This is a trauma so ubiquitous within our Western society that many of us write it off as a feature of the XY chromosomes as opposed to conditioning. It's as omnipresent to men as objectification is to women, and equally as despised.

The origin of male isolation comes from the same place as everyone else's disenfranchisement: Western Imperialism. Western imperialism teaches us that the way we get anything good in this world is through acts of conquest:

"We become happy by conquering sadness." "We become healthy by conquering our bodies." "We become good people by conquering the parts of us that are bad." "We become good adults by conquering our behavior as children." "We become masculine by conquering effeminacy." "We become cherished and loved by conquering the parts of ourselves that are problematic and detested." Etc.

The only way I was every able to really truly heal my lifelong traumas was by ending the reign of conquest in myself. Conquest is what traumatized me to begin with, so ending conquest is what allowed me to heal.

My guess is that the same logic can be applied on a societal scale. But it would mean changing the way we go about achieving results.

(I also want to point out that cis men actually have tons of rituals and rites of passage in relation to healthy masculinity. They're just covert, and rather than speak to one's sense of agency—which is something cis women and trans* folks desire in relation to their genders—they speak to one's sense of belonging, which is, again, what cis men desire in relation to theirs.)

It's a huge topic. It's taken days for me to even write this reply because there's so much about it I could say. Let me know if you want me to address something specific.

[gaypolls]

Submission Guidelines/Disclaimers

First, things to keep in mind when you submit:

there is a limit of 12 answers for polls, and on this blog one of those answers will always be 'show results,' to allow for people that the poll doesn't apply to to see without skewing data. so in reality you have a maximum of 11.

there's also an 80-character limit on the options

SO, if you go over those limits, know that I will take it into my own hands to decide which answers to omit and/or how to re-word it to fit the limit.

even otherwise, expect that the wording of your submission may be slightly altered in order to be more inclusive (when it doesn't affect the data), or because i think you missed an option that you probably meant to include, or just to make it sound less clunky. if you have an issue with any changes upon posting, i'm happy to hear you out.

currently there is no wait time, but if things go as expected, soon enough it'll likely be about a 4-5 day wait between the time you submit and the time it gets posted

if your poll is addressing a very small group, don't be surprised or angry when the 'see results' poll is the biggest. that needs to be there to keep data from being skewed by anyone's curiosity.

Base Guidelines For Submitting:

poll must be related to gayness in some way. it doesn't have to be directed exclusively at gay people, but it should center same-gender attraction. if you have a poll in mind to direct specifically at bisexuals, there's @mspecpolls

it CAN be a general LGBT poll, but if it's specific to something that has nothing to do with gay attraction, you're better off submitting to another blog. there's @transgenderpolls for trans stuff and @aspecpolls for ace/aro stuff.

it CAN be directed at a specific type of gay person, such as gay men, lesbians, specifically trans lesbians, nonbinary mlm, gay poc, disabled wlw, etc - literally you can address any specific gay group you want, just make sure to say so.

...this DOES include 'cis gay men/women/people' but tbqh you're gonna have to provide a good reason to be excluding trans people from the poll

in general if you want to explicitly exclude people who have a nonconforming relationship with gender, you better explicitly say so AND have a good reason. otherwise it'll be assumed that all sorts are included and if your options don't reflect that, i will change them or reject the poll.

it CAN relate to sex (i expect many polls here will be), just try to be tasteful about it. like, as long as it sounds like you're trying to collect data rather than arouse people lol

What would make me NOT post a submission:

as mentioned previously, if it's excluding subgroups without a good reason

if it's an opinion poll about the validity of any particular type of gay person. "validity" is a moot topic and i'm not going to encourage it, and in any case i'd like the focus of this blog to be about recording experiences (real, undeniable, forever in stone) rather than opinions (always changing, meaningless)

pride discourse polls, lol

anything that tries to pit issues against each other. no "which intercommunity issue is more important to you? ableism? racism?" like cmon

if it's just way too niche and would make a pointless poll. if a poll is "who's your favorite lgbt character" and then you've got 11 options from different TV shows, you gotta know that most of the ppl who see that poll will NOT have seen ALL those shows, so they'll really just be voting for the show that they know. it's just dumb.

if it's something like "gay people: do you like pineapple on pizza?" or some other question that doesn't actually have anything to do with being gay. if you wanna send something like this, make your case for why it's relevant that the poll is directed at gay people.

if it's some other obviously offensive shit, obviously. no racism or whatnot here.

FAQ:

Who counts as gay?

Like most of these guidelines I'll continue the same sentiment from the trans polls blog: We self-define here. But I will stress answering in good faith and understanding what any given poll is asking and what definitions they're using. If you're, say, nonbinary and bisexual in a way that makes all your attraction gay, or you're gay in a very specific way (like nb4nb), or you call yourself gay bc you're mostly gay but you're technically bisexual, or you're definitely homosexual but don't actually like to call yourself gay, etc, it'll likely just depend on the poll. It's totally up to you to decide if it includes you or not, or you can always ask if you want to be sure.

Though if it's not explicitly stated that the poll excludes transmasc lesbians or transfem gays, or other trans/nonbinary gay people, you should still for sure assume it includes you.

Why isn't there an option for X?/You missed an option.

Sometimes I may genuinely miss an option, but 9 times out of 10 the lack of the option is either due to the poll limits on tumblr, or because it goes against the point of the poll. For example, if the question begins with "If you're in a relationship," then "i'm not in a relationship" isn't going to be an option. If the prerequisite of the poll doesn't apply to you, then what you click is "see results." If it's something a little less concrete, polls will usually include some kind of "other" option anyway.

Can you make more polls for X type of gay person?

*I* make polls based off what I'm personally curious about. If you're curious about something, submit it!

Do you know that some people are gay in very unconventional ways that your polls aren't accounting for?

Yes, I know. When there's room on the poll, I try to be inclusive, but often there's not, and that's really the main thing there. However, I will admit that a secondary reason is that when a poll is addressing exclusively gay people, the fact that they're only attracted to one gender is relevant, regardless of whether or not it would still be gay of them to be attracted to more.

Can you get rid of the 'see results' button? Or can you not include it on this particular poll? I only want X people to respond. This poll is ONLY for X people.

If a poll is on this blog, it's for everyone, questioning and simply curious people included. It's also not going to stop curious people from clicking if there's no 'see results' button. It ensures that the data doesn't get skewed, and gathering data is what polls are for. It doesn't hurt you to see a big see results bar. The data is still there. If the bar does wind up obscuring more significant data, that means the poll was addressing too small of a group to begin with. And that's NOT the end of the world. This blog is far from the only place where you can get information about other gay people's experiences.

[antiterf]

I think the reason why terfs are so threatening to trans rights, where the top ideology against trans rights would be the Catholic Church and Evangelicals, is because their arguments focus much more on (outdated) science and logic. It's able to effectively get outsiders to believe and skip right to the transphobia. Plenty of the time their arguments can be used by the people who hate any form of feminism or leftism.

Moderates or leftists will hear that trans people are abominations that are playing God and nothing sticks. If anything trans leftists will think it's badass as long as they're safely away from the communities that truly believe that.

Then they hear the arguments about how transition is toxic to the body, that trans women are as violent as cis men, and that trans people are mentally ill. They see people put these arguments together relatively well, and the lives of trans people aren't common knowledge. If they're on the left, the feminist aspect of it and the aspect of justice for a marginalized group is going to be much more appealing than the Church.

Terfs usually use general transphobia, by which I mean arguments that any transphobe can use, while at the same time have a drive that relates to society rather than a spiritual one. They're able to use the inherent transphobia found in our modern day settings to effectively produce an argument that finds itself among academics.

I've seen terfs claim that they always felt that something was "off" about the trans movement or even trans women specifically. This feeling that something is off is common because you're attempting to break down societal norms that are given to you day in and day out. If you're not part of the main marginalized group it's benefitting, you're going to feel uneasy because it's hard to relearn, it's hard to identify and admit your prejudice, and it's hard to admit your privilege. "I finally found words to put to it" they found a way to avoid admitting their privilege. They found an out to admitting their privilege that doesn't completely counter their beliefs about womens rights.

That out is going to be tempting for a lot of leftists. I mean, we already see them avoid it without having an out, given a justification to absolves them of guilt.

So yeah, basically it's the recruitment of people that's faster, anti trans statements being respected as academic, and it being driven by a specific ideology rather than only cultural norms.

[angelsaxis]

makeup is a gender role thats doing more harm than good because the only reason/way it exists in our society is to force women of all kinds to cover "blemishes" and "flaws" that are RARELY if ever criticized on men (and if they are, its never for gendered reasons. dark spots never make a man less masculine, but they make women less feminine). women of all kinds are expected to fit a certain ideal of femininity that a lot of us, especially those of us who are trans or women of color or fat, will likely never achieve.

as much personal freedom can be gained from being able to wear makeup that finally matches your skin tone or foundation that isn't super harmful to your skin, its fucked that we live in a society that, again, puts this expectation of conformity on women. in its most extreme form we literally have women contouring their faces into the exact same high cheek bone/slim nose/full mouth look thats connected with peak (white) femininity and that zombiefies the features of Black women with it. there are women of color slimming their noses and that is meant to make them look more attractive. be serious.

the makeup industry is run by cishet white men. i understand that wearing makeup for a lot of women is an act of survival and a means of avoiding violence. i understand that. i understand that. nobody should say i don't. but the solution should then be making society less violent and less a threat to women who don't conform, not trying to convince more people that makeup is a net good.

the body positivity movement once it hit the mainstream had its flaws but at least the underlying message was great. now i see a lot of people who claim to be feminists do the bare minimum in praising the bodies of women who don't fit the beauty standard; praises like "cunt" and "queen" are still heavily reserved for the skinny, the curvy (not in a plus sized way), the able bodied, the cis. the flawless, the hairless. never for the disabled, the hairy, the trans women regardless of if they have a bulge or not.

we've got razor companies capitalising on the body positivity movement by leaning 100% into choice feminism with ads like "women have body hair (shave it)! women have dark hair, pubic hair, thick leg hair, and there's nothing wrong with this (shave it). Women come in all shapes and sizes (buy the razor)". I recently saw an add that implied the facial razor used to get rid of fine, dark hairs on a woman of color would help the world see the "real her" (or "you", rather).

(a lot of these ads are becoming more racially diverse without the core message changing. again, i understand that there are some women who literally have to shave for survival. its society thats fucked, not them)

more and more people on here are seeing feminism slide backwards; i am. I have no idea why, if there even is one reason and not a series of factors contributing to the dilution of feminist language on this site in particular and on social media in general and real life, also in general. a lot of the concepts are still here (consent, the general understanding of toxic masculinity, etc). but theres also resistance to naming patriarchy and to explicitly saying men are the primary beneficiaries of patriarchal violence.

[nerdygaymormon]

I hear this similar argument made by legislators to justify transphobic legislation, and by anti-queer people trying to divide the queer community (I have no problem with LGB, it's just the TQ).

The responses to her tweets is why I am sharing.

Here’s my reactions to EJ’s transphobic tweets:

1) Shouldn’t feminists already be defending a trans person’s right to be safe wherever they exist?

2) She says she doesn’t fear trans women, that might be true, I'll take her word for it. But her Twitter account shows she certainly dislikes the idea of trans people existing

3) Passing a law about which bathroom trans women can use doesn’t solve the issue of cis men sexually assaulting people. There’s no one reviewing ID cards before admitting someone to a bathroom or locker room. Rapists aren’t sneaking their way in by pretending to be trans, they just walk in

4) I’ve been at theaters and sports venues where the line to the women’s restroom is very long and some of the women decide to use the toilets in the men’s room. No one stopped them no matter the law

5) Also, she didn’t say it, but I imagine she’d oppose trans men from using the women’s bathroom. Basically it’s trans erasure from women-only spaces that she wants. Who’s next, women who dress butch or wear androgynous fashion because you can’t be too sure?

6) A 10-year-old girl changing into her swim suit or athletic wear is more likely to see a penis because moms often bring their little boys with them rather than send them alone to be with the men. Highly unlikely a trans woman would change out in the open in a way to reveal genitalia, more likely they’ll arrive and leave wearing the clothes in which they’ll participate or they’ll find a private stall in the bathroom to change in

7) Hahaha, the idea of a man making advances to the women in a lesbian bar. Not gonna be a successful night for him

8) Has a trans woman ever harmed a cis woman? Yes, but it’s incredibly rare. There is a lot of data showing that trans women are in danger when they are in the men’s prison or when they go to the men’s bathrooms/changing rooms. Apparently the person who made those tweets doesn’t value the lives of trans people

9) No matter how many reasoned responses people give, people like her will always be able to dream up other situations where they'll feel threatened by trans people