#also while a lot of it is external and internal misogyny

[dcmcboxers]

this sums up some thoughts I've been having pretty well. It's why I really don't like the conversation around gendered experiences growing up. this is something that I have to carry with me and have to examine.

Having a vagina means shame and secrecy is the baseline for any kind of sexual expression. You are trained to ignore or police sexual desire. you are not expected to have it or take pleasure in it. sex is demonized and it can be done so convincingly because the cost of pregnancy is your entire life falling apart.

bodily autonomy and agency is something you have to fight tooth and nail for at such a fundamental level.

I'm 26 and I still have scars and hangs ups about sex and sexuality. there is a deep set undercurrent of shame I have to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop to overcome. (ironically it's through the same kind of kink that others who are more repressed than I am are afraid of.)

I think it's related to the lesbian to trans masc pipeline. because there is an unfortunate fear of penises and pregnancy that becomes jumbled together. being a lesbian felt "safe" and because of that framework, it's easy to further complicate the relationships between trans mascs and trans femmes.

I stayed in the lesbian stage all through adolescence. it wasn't until I moved out in my twenties and I had more agency and autonomy that I felt safer to reexamine my gender and the genital biases I had before. for others and myself.

many other trans mascs just don't get here. they got locked into friend groups of people equally afraid and ashamed of sex, if not more so. purity (moral but also with it's obvious connotations to virginity) was the social currency.

Not helped that there's not really space for trans mascs in the cis gay community. probably the most sex positive space you could be in. it feels extremely insular and foreign and it hurts. it hurts to feel like there's no point in trying. (no one ever saw the aggressives either so forget the historical shared space between trans mascs and lesbians).

All this to say I do not condone anyone participating in callouts. But I recognize that I was relatively lucky in dodging social pressures, traumas, and narratives that made this culture extremely pervasive. I understand why they're wrapped up in what is a destructive culture for them as well.

I went through two incidents where my social circle blew up and I had rumors spread about me and my friends, was harassed or excluded online and in person, etc. it's an awful fucking thing to do and the methodology has become more and more precise in excising pain and ruining lives. trans mascs were doing it to themselves first. it's just sad.

[nothorses]

Do you think that trans men experience internalized misogyny?

From my initial understanding I believed that internalized misogyny was the misogynistic beliefs you had weaponized against yourself. Although apparently this includes the way you externalize it as well if you’re affected? Though, when people talk about trans men, they just call them misogynistic, as opposed to cis women who tend to be given the benefit of the doubt more and are told they have internalized misogyny.

Now I don’t doubt that trans men experience misogyny, and will continue to be affected by it even if they pass (though I’m sure how can shift). But it always feels as though some people believe trans men’s misogyny is more harmful than other demographics affected?

Tbh, I think "internalized misogyny" is more useful when it's defined in a more narrow and specific way than, like, any misogyny that is expressed by any woman.

This feels like a really solid "defining factor" for me, personally:

(From the Wikipedia page for "Inernalized Oppression")

I like the phrasing here of "against their own best interest" a lot. While it could be argued that any form of oppression is inherently against everyone's best interests, including the so-called "privileged" group-- and I would absolutely agree with that idea-- I think it's fairly easy to understand the difference between oppression that is perpetuated for (perceived) self-gain, vs. oppression that is perpetuated because one earnestly buys into the idea that they are inherently less valuable in some way.

I think this also avoids the tendency to define oppression as "internalized" or not based on the amount of harm caused, or to excuse certain people's bigotry because it also harms them personally.

Internalized misogyny really isn't inherently less harmful when women are the ones perpetuating it, and that framing isn't helping anyone! There are certain situations in which (cis) women have less power to perpetuate misogynistic violence or oppression than (cis) men do, absolutely. But that is a question of power to act in the first place, not the actual impact of those actions.

If anything, I would argue that I personally have suffered far more, and more severe, misogynistic violence at the hands of cis women than I have ever suffered from cis men. It genuinely doesn't matter to me whether those women were acting out of "internalized misogyny" or not.

It can be really helpful to understand the cause of someone's misogyny; why someone is motivated to perpetuate those ideas is going to inform the best approach to changing their beliefs and behavior. But that's a different question than "how harmful is this", or "should we excuse this person's bigotry".

So yes, transmascs can experience internalized misogyny. So much misogyny runs counter to our best interests. The same goes for transfems, and trans folks who don't fit into either category. I'd argue that anyone can experience internalized misogyny; including cis men, because, again, oppression ultimately runs counter to everyone's best interests.

More importantly, though, I think we need to be asking ourselves why we want to know whether someone's misogyny is "internalized" or not. What are we going to do with that information? Is it an excuse for the person perpetuating it, or do we need to answer that question in order to strategize, and push for growth and change?

[viridianevergarden]

“Elain is weak”

“Elain is plain”

“Elain is boring”

“Elain has no personality”

Really? I’m convinced that people either glaze over the page any time Elain’s name is mentioned or they completely forget out of their own ignorance and convenience.

(This is long so read at your own peril, mainly a lot of receipts from the books for proof)

This is where the internalized misogyny really becomes externalized at this point.

I mean- Elain is the epitome of the common woman at the moment. Of course she’s not some battle hardened warrior. Of course she’s not some head strong fighter that actively goes into the face of danger to save the day as a hero.

She’s a woman who wants a normal life, or at least, the most normal she can have it.

She wants to love and be loved by someone of her choosing. Thats normal.

She enjoys more “feminine” hobbies or activities. Thats normal.

She helps the people of velaris by acts of service. Thats normal.

She wants to help her family any way she can.

She is normal.

Normal is good. Normal is relatable.

I think that some people’s brains have been plagued by the case of “every female main character should be a strong warrior” disease and hate Elain because she doesn’t currently fit into that mold. Thus she’s deemed uninteresting.

They want another Feyre or Nesta copy out of her. They want her to wield a sword and have the power to dominate whole territories and rule a court or two. Yet Elain doesn’t want that.

But even then Elain isn’t weak. She’s not boring. Elain has a voice.

Every rose has its thorns to protect itself.

Here’s a few big examples:

ACoTaR, ch. 40

Context: The queens just left the sisters’ manor after their first negotiation.

And it was Elain—Elain—who sighed and murmured, “I hope they all burn in hell.”

Omg she cussed. Elain showing outward hatred and opening her mouth about it? That’s new.

ACoWaR, ch. 21

Context: About tracking the cauldron, Elain claimed she will find it if Nesta cannot. Nesta protested immediately.

“Why?” Elain demanded. “Shall I tend to my little garden forever?” When Nesta flinched, Elain said, “You can’t have it both ways. You cannot resent my decision to lead a small, quiet life while also refusing to let me do anything greater.”

Elain cut in sharply, “I am not a child to be fought over.”

Elain finally bearing her fangs to Nesta? Nesta flinched at her words.

ACoWaR, ch. 74

Context: during the war, Elain saved Nesta and Cassian’s life from the King.

Elain stepped out of a shadow behind him, and rammed Truth-Teller to the hilt through the back of the king’s neck as she snarled in his ear, “Don’t you touch my sister.”

Weak huh? I mean if she was weak, I don’t think she would’ve wielded the blade. Let alone step out of a shadow with it. Yet she had the courage and will to do so. (She will protect what she holds dear even if it means she has to kill for it, even if she doesn’t like spilling blood or causing harm).

ACoFaS, ch. 18

Context: Feyre talking Elain about Lucien, Elain standing her ground on her decision.

Those doe-brown eyes turned toward me. Sharper than I’d ever seen them. “And that entitles him to my time, my affections?”

“He doesn’t know me.”

Her mouth tightened, the only sign of anger in her graceful countenance. “I don’t want a mate. I don’t want a male.”

She has boundaries and she sticks by them. What a surprise. Using her voice.

ACoFaS, ch. 58

Context: Nesta finally came to solstice on her own accord per Cassian’s request. Elain greeted her and pleaded that Nesta does not upset Feyre since it’s her birthday. Nesta cussed Elain out without a thought.

And then Elain burst out laughing. Howling, half-sobbing laughs that sent her bending over at the waist, gasping for breath.

Elain held up a hand, wiping her eyes with the other. “You’ve never said such a thing to me!” She laughed again.

Elain being elated that Nesta had the balls to cuss her out? To be mean to her? Must’ve been a breath of fresh air from the suffocating overprotection. If anything, I’d feel intimidated that she laughed. Confused like Nesta. Elain has never laughed like this before.

ACoSF, ch. 76

Context: Feyre on her death bed during childbirth.

And when Elain began praying to the Fae’s foreign gods, to their Mother, Nesta bowed her head, too.

Elain was desperate enough to pray to The Mother and the Fae gods for help. For comfort. Shows some semblance of development in her journey of acceptance of her new life. (I don’t know why people think she refuses to accept her new life, the NC is her home)

ACoSF, Azriel’s Bonus Chapter

Context: Solstice night, Elain gifts Azriel earplugs with a humorous meaning.

Azriel unwrapped the box, glancing at the card that merely said, You might find these useful at the House these days, and then opened the lid.

Elain’s mouth twitched into a smile. "Nesta wouldn't appreciate the joke.”

Elain has the humor for making sex jokes lol.

• • •

I could continue adding more but I think you get the point now.

I don’t want her to be like Feyre.

I don’t want her to be like Nesta.

Elain has a voice and she has used it time and again.

She has plenty of character and I’m sorry if you don’t like it. She’s shown hatred, assertiveness, compassion, elation, acceptance, and humor throughout the series.

Just because she’s soft spoken and less combative than her sisters doesn’t make her any less than them.

No one can make you like a character except yourself. However, if you’re going to bash a complex character and say there’s no sustenance to her when she’s been shown to have obvious development and presence, then that’s an issue lol.

She’s a very fleshed out character and we haven’t even gotten to her story yet.

Even without military or magical prowess like her sisters, Elain has personality and I find that a lot of people including myself can definitely relate to her.

SJM merely set the stage for Elain.

All she needs to do is begin her Act.

[autogyne-redacted]

Reframing Patriarchy.

The popular model of patriarchy asserts that all men hold power over all women and gain privilege in doing so, paying little heed to the internal dynamics and differences among men and among women.

This model is profoundly inadequate.

Gender doesn't simply exist to privilege men. It exists to facilitate a more complex division of labor and social control. And while certain men are pushed to wield power, they are not free to use it as they see fit. Like company scrip, it only works within a system that is antithetical to any real kind of freedom.

A framework I like much better starts with recognizing that gender exists within larger systems of social coercion (Leviathan, nationalism, etc) and pushes ppl into specific roles that it needs filled along gendered lines.

While this varies from system to system and over time, a non-exhaustive list of roles is:

Within manhood:

Rulers.

Enforcers (cops, managers, etc. Chauvinism and misogyny can be seen as generalized ways of "keeping ppl in their place.").

Soldiers (often conceptualized as protectors)

Workers.

Villains (the abject, the punished): nationalism benefits from both internal and external threats to energize its militarism and the system actively produces enemies both internally and externally (see prisons producing more violence, intelligence agencies pushing ppl towards terrorism internally, US foreign policy in general, etc). It also benefits from populations whose visible punishment and suffering encourages others to be complacent.

Within Womanhood:

Child rearers: biological production, the mundane labor of daycare, and wielding authority over children to shape them into useful men and women.

Workers (pink)

Supporters: doing care work, organizational work, emotional work, house work, generally doing invisibilized work to sustain others and make up for where they're weak.

Trophies/cultural objects: to be beautiful, to remain pure and unsullied by the world, to give men something to strive for, to let men vicariously engage with things they're prohibited from being themselves, etc.

The vulnerable: an objectified role, the system uses the supposed vulnerability of women to justify and catalyze violence (see: lynchings, the image of oppressed Muslim women used to justify recent wars, the figure of Helen of Troy "[launching] a thousand ships," etc.)

These roles are flexible and show up at different levels, and the ways ppl are coerced to engage with them varies massively by intersecting demographics.

white women and women of color are pushed to engage with producing and raising children in very different ways, but the role is significant across racial demographics.

A man's normative role as "head of the household" will include elements of being a ruler/enforcer even if the man in question doesn't perform these roles professionally.

People can lean into these various roles or not, but I think they're all roles that are meaningfully gendered and that some ppl are coerced into / have projected into them.

Trans people are sometimes pushed into roles based off their assignment, sometimes off their transitioned gender position, and often towards abject and fetishized positions in general.

These roles are not strictly limited by gender (eg women can be cops) but I think they are solidly *gendered* in that gender as a system exists to produce them and they tie in closely with gendered values and gendered power dynamics. EG one of the major functions of masculinity is producing a sufficient population of cops and soldiers and shitty dads, if women want to take on these roles that's allowed lots of places.

[waitmyturtles]

Hello,

Some of your Only Friends meta sparked a question for me: You've referred to the impact of purity culture on how the boys (particularly Boston) are viewed both within the show and by fans watching. I was raised evangelical Christian (don't worry, it went poorly), so my associations with purity culture are quite specific to promise rings, abstinence-only education, and that sort of thing. However, you seem to be working from a much more expansive view that includes purity culture's downstream effects such as slut-shaming, heteronormativity, pressure to perform monogamy, etc. (and in at least one case you also linked it to colonialism).

Since your definition of purity culture is so much broader than mine has traditionally been, I'm curious: What exactly do you mean when you use the term, and what are the parameters of purity culture from your perspective?

I've been kind of squinting interestedly at your usage and trying to reverse-engineer your definition from context and it finally occurred to me that I can just ask you lol

(also I know tone can be hard to gauge on the internet so just to be safe: I'm in no way trying to start a weird fight about the meaning of the term; I'm just interested in what you're saying and seeking to understand it better)

Thank you!

Bonebag

HELLO @sorry-bonebag! WHAT A QUESTION! I don't think this is weird at all -- I think it's the fascinating basis of a conversation.

I'm not sure that I'm going to have a central, singular answer for you regarding how I view and/or define "purity culture." I think, as I generalize (massive emphasis on my generalizations in this answer) society's lack of acceptance for open sexual conduct and engagement, that we're dealing with a lot of elements of how power is managed and distributed among humans. For example, if we roll back to, say, the creation of Christianity as a religion, we have to ask: WHY does the religion have what it says about sex? Controlling sex means controlling people -- it means controlling who gets born, and who gets to pair with each other. Controlling sex means controlling behavior, and creating submissiveness to a religion allows a smaller group of people massive power over larger groups. Christianity (as an example) is a modern expression of a primal biological urge that humans have to create groups and gain power for survival. So, first and foremost, to judge someone else for having sex in modern times gives that judge a sense of power over someone else.

In a judgement against sex, and people who have unabashed sex -- let's use Khai from Theory of Love and Boston as examples -- what assumptions/judgements/behaviors are leveraged as we condemn these men (and women, and non-binary individuals) for having lots of sex? From my lens, we have the following prejudices playing into this:

Misogyny Internalized homophobia (on the part of the person being judged) Externalized homophobia (on the part of the people doing the judging) Biases against nontheistic people Jealousy (for the ease in which some people can come into sex) Competition

and so many more. All of these prejudices can and ARE leveraged to judge people for having sex, because judging people for having sex gives the judges power in greater society, as greater society ultimately looks down on the practice of having lots of sex.

I think a fantastic example of this is when Sand was talking about Boston to Ray in this past weekend's episode. Why the hell would Sand even have any business talking about Boston to Ray? Because condemning Boston's "slutty" behavior will give Sand a sense of power for Ray to acknowledge.

By calling another person a "slut" -- a person like Sand gains an upper moralistic and ethical hand. All while Sand is the person that Ray is sleeping with as Ray cheats on Mew. Calling someone ELSE a slut allows Sand (and, let's be honest, Ray, too!) to escape accountability for his own questionable behavior.

And that's what I'm calling out in my posts, especially my Morning After meta from yesterday. If a meta writer is condemning Boston for having sex, or is interpreting that SandRay have only slept together once, to fulfill some kind of shipper fantasy -- I'm going to write about those judgements in my posts, because I don't think those judgements are fair to a show that was very open and honest, at its premiere, about its premise that it would be digging into issues regarding sex and toxicity. I think "purity culture," as we're calling it, is a means by which the fandom wants to control the sexual behavior of Asian queer men. Much of the fandom here on Tumblr is Western, and as an Asian-American, it also gives me the jibbles that a Western audience would want to control with power, the behavior of Asian queer males, a much smaller demographic than a wider Western audience. That's where I bring a colonialist accusation to the table. To me, all of this keeps coming back to power. (I write about this in that post that talks about colonialism. Shipping really worries me. To force two young Asian males into a relationship fantasy -- and then to push that fantasy towards monogamy and a restriction of sex. I mean. Whoa. I very much see colonialism and racism in there, as non-Asians push Asians to behave in prescribed ways.)

This conversation circles back in part to the exhortation I made at the start of OF's premiere, that as much of the fandom as possible should watch Gay OK Bangkok. Jojo Tichakorn's and Aof Noppharnach's GOKB depicted Asian queer males in sex, love, pain, and careers. In this show, there were no condemnations for slutty behavior. (I mean, Pom expected Arm to fall in and out of love, but Pom wasn't being judgmental about it -- he ended up being there for his friend in a hilar way. Anyway!) A specter of morality and ethics, the Greek chorus or peanut gallery of chirping about not having sex did NOT permeate the show. It was just -- Asian gay males living their lives.

Only Friends is bringing up sooooo much about how the characters within the show, and the fandom external to the show, think about, talk about, and judge sex. Having these conversations, for me, is lifeblood. As an Asian-American, I WISH I could have had these open conversations about sex when I was a growing teen. Alas. The culture in which I grew up -- one that valued virginity, purity, and one that condemned sexual experimentation -- prevented me from being open in conversation about sex. I'm thankful that I grew up more and more independently as I got older, and that I had the intellectual capacity to understand and process when I was being judged, myself, for having sex. Because we've all been there, those of us who have had and enjoyed sex. We've been condemned for it, judged for it, every single one of us. We've been made to feel guilty about it.

And even as someone like Boston gets JUDGED, in every episode of OF, for HAVING lots of sex -- I SO appreciate his existence as a character and a narrative device, that he exists as a mirror for OTHER characters, like Ray/Atom/Sand/even Mew/even Top -- who do not hold themselves accountable for either similar behaviors, and/or for behaviors that are far more questionable than simple having sex. Top violated Mew's boundaries in episode 8 -- flat out. And Top's not been held accountable for a second. Top still has power, he still has an upper hand.

This was a long answer, @sorry-bonebag, but TL;DR: POWER. Power and accountability are two elements of humanity that I am forever fascinated by, and I love that we have a brilliant showmaker in Jojo to help highlight this in his art.

I very much hope I touched upon a kind of answer for your question, but at least you got to read some of my deeper thoughts on this topic! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS CONVERSATION!

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Things that are true at the same time

1) Romantic relationships are presented as the be all and end all of human relatonships, especially to women.

2) Given how other animals pair up, there is probably also a biological drive to find a mate.

3) Humans have proven time and time again that they will risk anything to have a chance at a romantic relationship, including external violence (for interracial relationships, homosexual relationships, relationships outside of marriage, any other relationship not approved of by family or the state) or internal violence (thousands of women are killed by their current or former husbands or boyfriends each year).

4) However, it is entirely possible for a human to have a fulfilling life without a romantic partner, and plenty of people have done so--women are at their happiest in their mid 80s, which is after the life expectancy of men.

5) Danger due to external violence and internal violence is not the same.

6) There is no social pressure to specifically be in a homosexual relationship while plenty exists specifically for a heterosexual relationship.

7) Opposite-sex-attracted women will often be shamed for their choice in relationships but it���s not to do with their opposite sex attraction.

8) Same-sex-attracted women will often be shamed specifically for their same sex attraction.

9) Even though OSA women are often shamed for having sex with men that people in their lives disapprove of, they are also shamed for not having sex with men, and lesbian women are shamed for not wanting to have sex with men at all.

10) When the risk is of external violence, it is the society that must change to accept relationships that are not inherently harmful (homosexual, interracial, etc.).

11) When the risk is of internal violence, the options are limited: A. have high standards and watch for red flags and hope you get lucky, or B. just don’t date.

12) Telling people to just not date regardless of the reason is not likely to be listened to.

13) That doesn’t mean it should never be said.

14) A small group of people on the internet telling you not to date someone with whom there’s a risk of internal violence is not the same as being threatened with external violence if you date someone.

15) The external societal pressure on women to date men far exceeds any “pressure” in radfem circles not to do so.

16) Telling you not to get a pet bear isn’t the same as telling you not to get a pet cat or dog. The latter might make it more difficult to find a place to rent (external). The former will literally be the one to destroy your home (internal).

17) Using misogynistic language isn’t cool, no matter who’s saying it to whom.

18) It’s also not nearly as commonly used in radblr as people are saying.

19) It doesn’t excuse homophobia or more misogyny as a response.

20) It is okay to take a break from this site sometimes. A lot of people here who are at odds would have a perfectly civil and productive discussion in person (not everyone, but a lot). Please take a walk outside, and put what you see here into context. No one on this website has any control of your life decisions.

Full disclosure: I am a heterosexual woman, I had sex with a man over the winter holidays. He is very likely the last man I will have any such relations with, but I trust him with my life and I will continue to have a handful of such encounters with him each year unless I feel I can’t trust him or he wants to stop. Nothing I read on radblr is going to change that. I had sex with him on Thanksgiving weekend too. And on the week I took off in the summer. I’ll probably have sex with him some time this spring. What radblr has done is validated my not feeling safe dating anymore men after my rape several years ago. My standards have raised considerably and I feel no shame for having them. I accept that I may never find a romantic life partner or have any children but realize a fulfilling life is still possible.

Take radblr as a balancing act: liberal men tell you to have sex with lots of men (and some women too as long as the men can watch) and that you’re a prude if you don’t, conservative men tell you to have sex with one man only and that you’re a slut if you have sex with more than one. Both tell you it’s wrong not to have sex with men at all (even nuns are called brides of Christ). Radblr simply says, hey, whether it’s one or it’s many, men are dangerous and it’s safer to not have anything to do with them. Difference is women in radblr have no power, external or internal, to enforce what they think you should do. Men do, both external and internal, and they use it frequently.

You can have sex with men if you want to have sex with men! You can date men and hope to find your unicorn, I hope you do too! But it’s no bad thing to hear, in what is a small space on the internet, “Hey, consider not doing this risky thing” in a sea of “Do this risky thing this way or else” and “No, do this risky thing this way or else”. It’s okay. It’s literally okay to be told “We don’t think you should do this” and still do it. And if the day comes where you don’t want to anymore, at least you know you have a--again--small place where people won’t shame you for that decision.

[autolenaphilia]

Whipping Girl is such a transfeminist classic at this point that it’s hard to review. Of course it wasn’t meant to be some definitive work on transness. There wasn’t much credible research, so Serano uses largely her own experiences to create her own observations on gender.

Of course, over the years the limits of her perspective has grown more obvious. Serano is a cis-passing middle-class white woman, and it limited her perspective. There are almost no discussion of racism in this book. Serano may have coined the word transmisogyny, but transmisogynynoir remains beyond her, at least in Whipping Girl.Her transfeminism lacks an anti-capitalist analysis. There is much valuable criticism of this book to be made, preferably written by black transfems.

Yet a lot of the criticism the book has actually received seems much overstated, and ultimately coloured by the very transmisogyny the book criticized. I’ve seen descriptions of this book as some anti-transmasc or NB-phobic screed, out of a few lines taken out of context. Pointing out the hypocrisy of Michfest barring trans woman from attending as audience members while allowing transmascs to take the stage is hardly hatred of transmascs. And describing how Serano went from identifying as bi-gender to becoming a trans woman and criticizing the ideology of subversivism is not to invalidate non-binary gender identites. I’m not entirely convinced by her “born this way” or “intrinsic inclinations” explanation for gender, but it’s hardly a gender essentialist ideology, as it actually tries to validate being trans or gender non-conforming. Again there are valid criticisms of Whipping Girl’s limitations, but this kind of criticism seems coloured by transmisogyny more than anything.

And there is so much that Whipping Girl gets right that it remains a vital text almost 16 years later. Serano’s main insight is that transfems are not just oppressed by transphobia or for breaking the gender binary, but also misogyny. That we are affected by an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, transmisogyny. It’s such a useful concept for understanding the world we live in. It enables us transfems to be included in feminist theory and analysis, while providing a method for criticizing our exclusion from it.

And the book is at its best when it analyses the impact of that transmisogyny, in both the daily life of transfems and in the media that talks about us. All the discrimination, mistreatment and hurtful comments we experience. The disgusting attitudes of our medical gatekeepers, who deny us healthcare if we are not straight, gender-conforming and passable/fuckable in their eyes. The misogyny of the media and literature, from hollywood films with disgusting and deceitful trannies, to radfem transmisogynistic screeds like Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire, the dubious “research” by medical gatekeepers such as Ray Blanchard or how we are practically exploited in modern queer theory written by non-transfems. Again, Serano’s perspective is limited by her privileges, but the personal perspective gives the book a lot of its accessibility and emotional impact.

So despite Whipping Girl’s limitations it remains a very important book. Even allies to transfems should read it, with an open mind, and maybe they will learn something. Serano does sincerely try to reach out to allies with the book. And I especially recommend any transfems to read it, to help them understand what is being done to us. It provides such vitals tools to identify and criticize transmisogyny, both external and internalized.

[moonbreezes]

wait George Villiers was a shitty person? what did he do?

Hi! I’d like to preface my answer to this question by saying that I’m not a historian (I have a degree in linguistics and literary studies), and all of my information comes from doing a lot of research regarding George on my own, therefore there might be a lot more info on what exactly he did or did not. So if there is someone more knowledgeable about this, please correct me.

What George Villiers did, and, quite frankly, how his career had gone could be described by a line reportedly spoken by Queen Anna of Denmark to Abbot, the archbishop of Canterbury (and Pembroke), two people who worked together to install George in James’s bedchamber as a favourite “You and the rest of your friends know not what you do. I know your master better than you all, for is this young man be once brought in first person he will plague must be you that labour for him.”

As opposed to the previous favourite Somerset (Robert Carr), Gorge was deeply ambitious as he not only wished to enrich himself while in favour, but he also wanted to become an important player in the political sphere. (If I dare say so myself, I believe, that his time as a politician, would not be half as bad if he had received a proper training. Tho he was undoubtedly a shitty, to put it mildly, person) He knew that key to his success was the affection and love of the king as he could literally take everything that was given to him and make him once again the poor George that he once was. (I really do not want to talk about their relationship as it would take more than a sentence to summarise it). Thans to how rapidly he climbed the social ladder and received more titles and positions at the court which in turn allowed him to have actual sway in the country’s internal and external politics. Geore was also keenly aware that apart from the royal favour he needed connection to face his opposition (the ancient families of England). So patronage, it was something common (even now). He installed his immediate family at the court and secured them positions, (mmm nepotism), the marriage market was also fair play as George slowly but surely arranged marriages for people in his family, win-win situation.

Addressing his now growing family, his wife – Kate Manners, became one as he possibly kidnapped and raped her. (There are some rumours that he “what-a-surprise got locked” with her in one building so after that they just had to get married.) It was a marriage for the money she could bring, and the connections did not hurt either, a nice bonus, one might even say. He also made a deal with Edward Coke to marry off his daughter (her mother protected her fiercely) to his brother. It is said that she cried during the ceremony.

In lieu of the theme of nepotism, as he slowly transformed the royal bedchamber into a place of the de facto lawmaking. He packed every place possible (to an extent) with people what would back him up. For that he was notoriously selling patronages, titles, and land, especially in Ireland where law did not hold him so much. Literally whenever the parliament tried to remove him from power because of how badly (Imo he would have done much better if he had training and not just gone with the general fuck around and find out rule.) he did his job, and people were fed up with him. He started a whole 20D chess match with Richelieu which was pointless, started a few campaigns that ended with him often not paying the soldiers (I mean no one would stab him to death over such thing… right), the last one being a pointless siege that only made England loose troops and money. (He could have one that one, he was so close to it, but he had to celebrate the possibility of victory rather than making people sing papers). He enraged the protestant England by helping to offer help France with fight off Protestants. What else… oh yes, he almost sa’d Anne of Austria which just… mmm the flavour of historical silencing of women, misogyny and men who just have dick measuring contests because.

Tho what I do not believe, and what many line up with, is that he did not poison James (or at least wasn’t aware of doing so??) because I think that he would gain more from helping the king survive than just killing him.

Sources

Bellany, Alastair, and Thomas Cogswell. 2015. The Murder of King James I. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cogswell, Thomas. 2017. James I (Penguin Monarchs). Penguin UK.

Lockyer, Roger. 2014. Buckingham. Routledge.

Stewart, Alan. 2014. The Cradle King. St. Martin’s Press.

Veerapen, Steven. 2023. The Wisest Fool. Birlinn Ltd.

[missmastectomy]

hi. i've been out as a trans man for about 6 years now. been on T for 6 months more or less, my T levels seem to be pretty low still and the changes are mild. i've been considering stopping for a while now though. i still think of myself as a trans man but... maybe i actually want to just live life as a woman again. it felt less complicated despite everything. maybe just because i felt more desirable. my dysphoria hasn't changed at all and i still feel like shit in general. it just doesn't feel worth it anymore - i'd rather go the "easier way". what do you think?

Hi! First of all I recommend reading my responses to this (https://www.tumblr.com/missmastectomy/749392044645122048/so-i-need-some-advice-and-since-youve)

and this (https://www.tumblr.com/missmastectomy/749429337876529152/question-around-when-do-negative-health-affects)

My take on gender is that it is best and simplest to learn how to accept your body as it is. When I first detransitioned, I didn’t “feel like a woman” because my idea of “woman” was based in a lot of stereotypes. People read me as male at the time, so how could I be a woman? I wasn’t performing gender in the way I thought other women must be, therefore I wasn’t a woman. But this isn’t really a healthy mindset to have. I discuss it in depth in my answers, but I believe that dysphoria is caused by external factors, mainly difficulty fitting in with others of your sex, internalized misogyny/homophobia, trauma, etc.

It is best to really take a hard look at your dysphoria first, and then decide whether or not to transition. The rhetoric common in the community is that dysphoria is incurable and transition is the only answer, but that’s not true. I have very little dysphoria nowadays and feel much happier in my body than I ever did when I was transitioning. It is a mental condition that can absolutely be dealt with without hormones or surgery.

It might be helpful to ask yourself what you mean when you say “live life as a woman again.” Do you want people to read you as female? Do you want to get to a point where you are happy recognizing yourself as a woman, regardless of other’s perceptions? Questions that deal with material reality will get you a lot farther than trying to figure out some nebulous, abstract idea of what gender you truly are.

As I say in my description, if you are ever doubting transition, stop. Do not force yourself to continue if your self perception/goals have changed. If you really want, you can always go back on HRT (which I personally do not recommend), but reversing the effects later is much more difficult.

I’ll also tell you right now that detransition isn’t easier, mentally speaking. In order to heal from your dysphoria, you are going to have to put in a ton of mental work. If you detransition because you don’t feel like your transition goals are obtainable, there’s still a possibility you could retransition because the core issues aren’t resolved. Since you’ve had minimal effects from T, it should be pretty easy for you to reintegrate with women, and I will say things will probably be a lot less stressful on you finding community there than trying to fit in with men, who are unlikely to see you as a man in the same capacity they see themselves.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful. Feel free to DM or send another message if you have more questions.

[battyaboutbooksreviews]

🦇 Fly With Me Book Review 🦇

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

❝ They were mirrors in a way. Both of them watching their loved ones suffer. Both unable to help in any meaningful way. Both coping--one with work and the other with a list. Both scared shitless of hurting the other one. ❞

❓ #QOTD What are you afraid of? ❓ ⚠️ Content Warnings: Terminal illness, chronic illness, misogyny, toxic relationship, grief, traumatic brain injury

🦇 ER nurse Olive Murphy's fear of flying doesn't stop her from getting on a plane to honor her brother, but it seems her fear is misplaced. A medical emergency forces Olive to leap out of her seat and into action, only for the flight to get redirected. She would have missed the marathon she was meant to run at Disney if not for Allied Airlines pilot Stella Soriano; a gorgeous, type A woman who captivates Olive with a glance. They share a magical day at Disney together as the video of Olive saving a man's life goes viral (after all, she did TECHNICALLY save Mickey Mouse), prompting an uptick in positive press and sales for the airline. Stella sees it as an opportunity to earn her long-deserved promotion and asks Olive to play the role of her fake girlfriend as they generate more press. Can Olive stand playing a fake role when her heart is already on a one-way flight?

[ Instagram | Literal | Goodreads | StoryGraph ]

My Thoughts:

💜 Get ready for a sassy, steamy, sapphic love story bound to soar into your heart. Andie Burke's debut novel has a little of everything; an insta-crush, fake dating (complete with a binder full of rules and research!), sharp and witty banter, plus some real and raw mental health rep. Between their anxieties, family responsibilities, and messy emotions, both Olive and Stella are relatable main characters you can't help but fall in love with. Sparks fly from the moment Olive and Stella meet, and Olive's mega-crush is adorable without making her seem adolescent. We gain a lot of insight into both characters' lives despite the fact that the story sticks with Olive's POV, which isn't always an easy feat. The prose is descriptive but not overly flowery, but it's the character development that really flies off the page. I absolutely adored Olive's best friend, too (imagine Felix from Orphan Black and get ready for ALL the gay sass).

💜 Burke does a wonderful job of normalizing mental health conditions without banging mental health rep over our heads. Olive's symptoms are as much a part of her as the heart-eyes she wears when Stella is in the room. After her (toxic) ex broke up with Olive because her anxiety disorder and panic attacks were "too much," Olive is afraid her symptoms will eventually scare Stella away. Meanwhile, Stella's responsibilities as her father's caretaker (who has Parkinson's) create the cracks in her type-A facade and show us why she's so committed to earning her promotion. Both characters encounter misogyny as well. While some readers might feel that there's too much going on, Burke carefully stacks these issues atop of one another. That's life; we're all juggling multiple conflicts, both internal and external. Read the quote I selected again. These women are mirror images of one another. Their struggles, while different on the surface, make it all the easier for them to empathize with and support each other. There's also no perfect, easy solution to the problems these women are facing because, again: that's life.

🦇 A part of me does wish this story split the POV, allowing us to see Stella's perspective. Keeping the focus on Olive ensured Stella's feelings for her remained hidden, but...come on. We all know where a sapphic romance novel is bound to end: with a sapphic romance. The "fake dating girlfriends with benefits" situation is where the story really gets messy. It's difficult to believe that Stella doesn't have romantic feelings for Olive at that point. The miscommunication trope is still my least favorite, but it lingers much too long in this one, leading to a not-at-all surprising third-act breakup. Even so, this remains the best sapphic romance I've read so far this year.

🦇 Recommended to fans of the fake dating trope, serious character development, and a heart-eyed, healing MC.

✨ The Vibes ✨ ✈️ Fake Dating ✈️ Bisexual MC ✈️ Sapphic Ship ✈️ Panic Attacks/Depression/Mental Health Rep ✈️ Debut Author

🦇 Major thanks to the author and publisher for providing an ARC of this book via Netgalley. 🥰 This does not affect my opinion regarding the book.

[butchviking]

I get what that person is saying but I don't think men experience "misogyny". I think it's related to misogyny and it's related to homophobia but can't properly be called either.

Patriarchal cultures are like a cult or religion of male supremacy, utterly obsessed with propagating themselves. That is why they control women brutally as they literally control the propagation of human life. But culturally, they are also obsessed with creating men that can make more men like themselves. There's different molds for different cultures of course and with different acceptable "types" of men even within the same culture (ie being gentle is unmanly, BUT you can be gentle if you make up for it by being violent through rhetoric and community function - think of Priests or otherwise "gentle" seeming very religious men, and how for them it's interpreted as being "dignified" in a way it wouldn't fly for other men). So while there's some room for variation, there's still a strict sort math involved for how unmanly you're allowed to be, and a strong artificial upbringing to mold boy as much as possible.

So going back. That process of molding is what she's getting at. It's not that men experience "misogyny" or that straight people experience "homophobia". Rather patriarchy needs to mold boys into men capable and willing to carry out misogyny, homophobia, and other cruelty to perpetuate itself, and they most certainly are willing to abuse boys just enough to make sure they get those results - if not by directly changing that boy, then by teaching other boys by example what sort of behavior deserves cruelty. And there's an in-built cultural anxiety at people outside of these roles, and even a panic response to them in children. This is why say, even conservative women react violently and urgently to something like their little boy wanting a butterfly face paint instead of something manly. It's a panic response!

Anyway this is just my two cents as a moid, sorry for the essay v_v ... but I think misogyny and homophpbia proper really have to be preserved to define the experiences of people who strictly do experience that on a life-long and systemic basis. But idk certainly thought provoking...

i think it relies upon one being mistaken for the other. a straight man can experience homophobia, i do know that - some guys beating on him for looking like a fag aren't going to stop when he insists "you've got it all wrong! im not actually gay!!" and i do also know that males can experience misogyny, if they're perceived as female - and that does happen to "cis" men too. a lot of ppl have called this "misdirected homophobia" & "misdirected misogyny" in the past but when i was talking abt this last i was arguing that the "misdirected" is kind of neither here nor there. it's happening, misdirected or not. they won't ever experience the full weight of those marginalisations - even the campest straight guy in the world can still marry his wife, and the most female-passing transwoman you'll ever meet will never need an abortion - but they can absolutely still experience facets.

the thing i thought was most interesting in that post was the thought of the straight teen still figuring out their sexuality & internalising the homophobia they recieve bc they think they MIGHT be gay... in a way thats still a case of one being mistaken for the other, but in an internal rather than external way. they're experiencing homophobia externally bc someone else has mistaken them for gay, and experiencing it internally bc they have mistaken themselves for gay. but some day they figure out that they're not actually gay after all - what does that experience leave behind in them? (listen to frank iero barriers to find out)

what ur talking about i would just call gender socialisation. gender is a system constructed for the purpose of misogyny, it's the framework of patriarchy, but i wouldn't argue that men experiencing negative aspects of gender socialisation & enforcement are experiencing misogyny. those are distinctly different.

[bookshopsbizarreblog]

I don't normally care to get involved in Tumblr discourse, but ik you prev so I'll share my thoughts <3. The first set is more in relation to your comment than the root post, but it's your comment that got me thinking.

While your argument makes some sense on paper, and the fundamental core of it is trying to affirm folks trans identities (always a good thing), it still rings a bit.... not necessarily gender essentialist, since that has connotations™, but rigid in terms of what gender means. There is no universal set of features, internal, external, experiential, or socially mandated, that encompass what it means to be any given gender. I'm sure this is something we agree on, barring possible quibbles about how self identification functions. If someone says they're a certain gender (or not, for that matter), you believe them. How they identify is in their hands.

But identifying one way now doesn't necessarily mean that all of their past experiences align with them as their present gender going through that. For some people, I'm sure it does. There is a whole lot of utility in recontextualizing one's past in that way, in, as you put it, declaring that they "[were] not experiencing it as women, they[ were] experiencing it as men who are being treated as women." Or whatever other gender is relevant for the given situation. But it's not necessarily universally true. Case in point, genderfluid people. Someone feeling nonbinary one day and like a man the next doesn't mean that their experiences within the self-identification of nonbinary are all retroactively male experiences. Again, I'm sure that's preaching to the choir here.

For binary trans folks, I can't imagine not applying a similar principle. If someone believed and was treated as though they were a specific gender growing up, and later discovered otherwise, how they choose to relate to and understand their past is their call. The root truth is that gender and identification is a complicated mess, and we are all constantly shifting in our relationships to society and ourselves. Even cis people can experience dysphoria and disconnect from their preferred gender. There's no one unified story for what it means to be any given person. We get to make those ourselves. It'd be completely valid for a trans man to look back at when he thought he was a girl, along with everything that came with it, and pick out the early signs that would lead to them deciding that being a girl didn't suit them without invalidating their previous experience with that gender. We don't have to understand ourselves as always having been one way or the other, even within a binary identification. We can, if it serves us. But it's an individual's decision.

Anywho, that's just my rambling thoughts on what you said. TL; DR - I agree overall with you but think there's room for individual nuance and different self-concepts.

Now to actually address the disconnect I see between you and OP lol

I don't feel like your two claims are contradictory, and the linking factor is empathy. Let's set aside everything else I said, just work with a spherical trans man in a frictionless vacuum someone who has always known they were a man in the wrong body, with all the frustrations and dysphoria that entails. As OP said, they will not have always passed, and will thus have first hand experience of how society treats women.

Now, does this make them a woman? Obviously not. Does this mean they experience it identically to how women do? Again, no (though I'd also argue against any one universal experience with sexism and harassment). But they can still get it. They can still understand how it feels to go through all that due to society's perceptions of women. And I think that's closer to the point OP is making. They're not arguing that being on the receiving end of misogyny makes trans men women.

They're just saying "we experience it too. We understand how painful it can be. Don't discount our pain, or our knowledge of it, just because we're men. You're ignoring a very real struggle many of us have gone through, and that also hurts."

At least that's my reading, prev. Feel free to disagree, and I'd love to hear your thoughts! I'm sure I've missed some things and have points people might quibble or clarify. Learning is a constant process and I'd appreciate feedback!

i think im going to lose my fucking mind actually.

this little make believe game that yall are playing where ur all pretending that we have always been passing as cis men is honestly just really sickening to read. as if trans men have never been sexually harassed or abused because society perceives us as women. im genuinely of the opinion that u all just do not believe trans men face misogyny and thats so unbelievably fucked up and just not based in reality. its actually disgusting and vile.

[junepersecond]

Thoughts on the Alt-Right Pipeline as a Trans Woman

tw: use of the term “nazi”

There’s this stereotype or inside joke that a lot of transfems had a “Nazi phase.” This is of course a gross mischaracterization, but it touches on a phenomenon of pre-transition fems being on the alt-right pipeline as “boys.”

For me personally, I was on that pipeline. I consumed “anti-feminist” content, and I watched people like Sargon of Akkad with his “feminist owned” videos.

This content provided reasoning (and an enemy) for why I felt so terrible as a “boy,” as well as anger at the idea I was privileged or better off for it. I was profoundly miserable, and all of the privileges that are afforded to men in society were either fully or partially denied to me as a non-traditional “boy” (read as subtly queer and feminine), or when administered to me felt more like burdens and pain than any privilege.

This content also manifested a sort of pseudo-internalized misogyny. I felt an inexplicable anger at women, specifically queer women, for daring to say that I had it better when they were everything I wanted to be (of course I was not conscious of this reasoning and therefore only felt the anger).

Wrapped in this was also the desperate attempt to hold on to professed “masculine qualities” such as emotional suppression and reason. These enabled me to deaden the misery that I felt while keeping this feeling of superiority over women that embraced femininity (which was, to me, a failure to avoid, similar I believe to the existence of pick-me girls who put down other women for men’s approval).

The confluence of my budding sexuality and the pain and fear that caused (both from internal and external sources) during this time created a desperate attempt to hold on to that emotional suppression, which further reinforced these negative constructs.

I eventually forced my way out of this pipeline as my sexuality made these ideas incongruous in my mind, but I retained aspects of that mindset and for many years until I discovered the root cause and transitioned.

The phrase is not really a good way to describe this phenomenon, but I believe it’s meant to bring ironic levity to a period of intense pain. But of course, people disavow treating any transfem with the benefit of the doubt, especially when this phenomenon can be used to further reinforce the perception of the “original sin” of masculinity that taints her forever

The “Nazi phase” can be better put as, “A period of adolescence in which a young transfem is suddenly beset by masculinity and is drawn to a pyrrhic solution in a false war against a false enemy.” But that’s kind of a mouthful.

---

[symmrtry]

TW ED/ Per weight convo: harm reduction is multi faceted. In the choice between “lose weight” or “don’t lose weight” I would like to pose this for you to consider: what stress/pain is easier to tolerate or compartmentalize? I was 200+lbs for many years with an eating disorder (not a binge eating disorder which may be surprising) and I found myself in a similar predicament- I needed to either be okay with being fat or fight it. At that point in my life I found it was easier/more holistic on my mental health to try to learn to be ok with being fat. My intuition knew that the way society interfaces fat people is not too dissimilar from any other marginalized or “less savory” group of people- you mentioned skinny people may actually just be better people but would you make that argument around racism? That because white people get treated better black people and other POC may actually just be worse people? I’m hoping you don’t/wouldn’t feel that way, but if you do agree with the latter statement then maybe addressing your beliefs is the first step before making any changes. Internalized fat phobia is as real as internalized racism, misogyny, etc. Long story longer, I focused on changing my brain. I actively rejected the opinions of people that were anything less than loving and supportive and. As exhausting as it was, I began laying the ground work for not needing external validation. My brain said I couldn’t wear something because I was fat? I wore it anyway. I actively stared at myself in the mirror and said only nice things, when a hurtful thing came out of my mouth I would correct myself out loud to myself and apologize. I only followed HAPPY and shameless fat people on social media, I unfollowed anybody that triggered my desire to be skinny. I went to the Emily Program and got lots of therapy too. I focused on making my internal brain space the safest and most loving place so that when the inevitable bullshit of people came knocking at the door, I didn’t automatically believe them. This is HARD work (and a continuous practice!) but it’s also so rewarding because not only do other people’s opinions stop mattering but the self’s opinion of self improves and matters the most. The craziest thing is I lost weight naturally over this process. I started eating more intuitively, I found ways to enjoy working out my body (Yoga with Adrienne is free on YOUTUBE and she’s amazing!) and in general all my focus was on feeling peace and loving myself- REGARDLESS OF HOW MY BODY LOOKED. the more those practices were practiced and took root the more my body seemed to settle into itself. I’m by no means skinny now, and honestly I LOVE the extra pudge on the bottom of my belly or under my arms, they make me soft like a cuddly bunny, nor is the moral of the story to love yourself so you can lose weight, but the point is there is roots to this struggle and pain: the shame, the insecurity, taking on other peoples opinions, eugenics based trauma (fat phobia impetus in many ways, along with racism) maladaptive coping skills, lack of boundaries, lack of discipline, etc. I also learned so much about the American food system- are you American? There are so many Americans that go abroad and eat more and STILL LOSE WEIGHT while traveling. Our processed food in the states is not our ally.

The point is do the thing that feels like it would empower you: would taking on a weight loss journey be more empowering for you or would detaching from societal paradigms be more empowering? Can you blend the two together and get creative to better support yourself- hell maybe exposure therapy and get fatter? There is no right answer, I would meditate and journal on this for yourself and trust your heart and soul- are you a spiritual person? While I say fuck the church, don’t abandon God if that would be a helpful addition to your self care. what you deserve is to have your own brain on your team. You’re brilliant and more than good enough whether you’re obese or underweight. You’re a blessing. Don’t let yourself be brainwashed further you can fight back and you can find peace and love with your body/ yourself. And only subconsciously or consciously insecure people ever say less than supportive of loving things. If you have loved ones saying things like you shouldn’t wear certain types of clothes, consider setting boundaries or even cutting these people out if they can’t speak kindly. Criticism has a time and a place but good criticism also understands that it is SUBJECTIVE and it sounds like you’re surrounded by a bunch of judgmental dinguses!! I understand how this can make it harder to be kind to yourself but then RUN! Save yourself! Protect yourself! Love yourself! Your body is doing it’s best and it needs your love compassion and support to do or be better. Kicking a misbehaving dog is just abuse. I love you, there is nothing for you to be ashamed about you are a gift you just are in the process of learning to see that and value that in yourself <3

this is very sweet i appreciate u. i more meant that skinny people are treated better and such so its more desirable to be skinny. but most ppl can change how much they weigh, no one can really change their skin color. so no i dont think poc are “worse”, nor are fat ppl. being prejudice is of course bad. everyone is worthy

i just think that actually changing my body might bring me more joy in the long run. but its a mix of it all. the physical and the mental. maybe plastic surgery too? #loveyouself

[maaarirurero]

After reading many brilliant thoughts by others about it, I’ve managed to put my own thoughts about AMC’s IWTV and race in order and write it down. I’m only talking about the tv series because I’ve only recently started reading the books and it’s been a while since I watched the movie, so I won’t compare them. I’m also a white European woman so I’m sure there are things that I’m missing, but maybe I can still contribute something.

-------

One thing that was a big take-away for me while watching this series in regard to how it talks about race, is how you don’t have to be a racist in order to profit from a racist society and your place within white supremacy.

Or in other words: Lestat expresses how strange and stupid he finds the racial hierarchy that he encounters in America (and surely doesn’t believe in the race theory of the time, contrary to the other white rich men Louis has to deal with on a daily basis) but he still profits from his place in a racist society.

The show explicitly shows us that neither Louis wealth nor his existence as a vampire allow him to get away from how he is perceived and treated. And Lestat doesn’t get it. Because he sees himself as an individual. Someone who is neither connected to humanity, nor to whiteness. But Louis doesn’t get that luxury.

I think what upsets some people is that because in this adaptation Louis (and Claudia) are Black suddenly Lestat can also no longer be seen as an individual but also as someone in the context of how he is racialized = white. And that‘s something that makes us white people so uncomfortable when we are forced to do it for the first time (or the xxxth time, if we don’t learn to work through it...), because we are so used to seeing ourselves purely as individuals. And it really enhances the story in my opinion. Because the story was always set in “our” reality, not in a race-, gender-, or class-less fantasy world. But now race can’t be ignored. Just like it can’t and shouldn’t be ignored in the real world. Just like homophobia (external and internal) isn’t ignored in this series either. And it’s not done in a way that tells the majority audience “oh no look, sad Black/gay people.” but in a way that resonates with the minority audience (as far as I can tell) and forces the majority audience to think about why they are feeling uncomfortable and sit with it.

Over on my Twitter I talked about how wonderfully not sensational (not “oh look! two MEN kissing!”) the intimate scenes between Louis and Lestat are in this series are, how their homosexuality isn’t shown as shocking or scandalous to the viewer but treated as just two people in a (very complicated) love story. But I’m sure that someone with a lot of unresolved homophobia might feel very uncomfortable with that, and that’s good. I hope they sit with that feeling and THINK. But I’m getting off-track.

Lestat doesn’t think of Louis and Claudia as “lesser than” because of their race, however he also doesn’t see them as his equals. Which is probably because he just knows how much they don’t know and how vulnerable they will be in the “world out there”. But he also doesn’t tell them, yes because he wants to protect them, but also BECAUSE he doesn’t see them as equals.

After ep 6, I’ve seen some posts where people were upset about Claudia talking about Lestat as “massa” when she speaks to Louis, but I think it’s really just her interpreting not being treated as an equal in the way that comes most natural to her given the world she grew up in: She would read his behavior as racism and misogyny. Yes it’s uncomfortable, but it makes sense in the story and the timeline.

She emphasizes the racial context in her conversations with Louis because she knows that their connecting elements are that they’re both Black and they’ve both been turned by Lestat and thus belong to him in a way. So she does what she thinks she has to do to get Louis on her side. Because she knows she can’t break free of Lestat on her own.

And Lestat in that train scene is such a perfect performance of how you can be horribly racist and misogynistic without actively thinking that the other person is “less than” because of their race or gender, but simply by employing the tools that you have been handed IN a racist and misogynistic society. He wants to make her stay because he doesn’t want Louis to retreat back into his shell again like the last time Claudia was gone. But how does he do that? By employing the tools handed to him by a racist and misogynistic society: He uses the image of the cage and his knowledge about the abuse that happened to her against her. As a white man both of these tools (racism and misogyny) are easy for him to use in order to get what he wants, because there are systems of oppression behind his words that make them more powerful. Does he know that that’s what he’s doing, or does he just pick the low hanging fruits handed to him by the society he lives in? I don’t know.

But I mean, it’s basically summed up in Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) quote, right?

"If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power."

So anyone being angry about how “the series made Lestat racist and he wouldn’t do that” is missing a point in my opinion. I don’t think the series ever portrays him as a racist in the way that it does with the other white characters around him. The series just shows us what every white person living in a society rooted in white supremacy is capable of doing (not because we are inherently bad or whatever bs) because we live in a society that allows us to do these things, and gives our actions power if we follow the easy route and choose to act in a way that is in line with the power structure we exist in.

The racism of the time that the story Louis is telling us is set in is very overt and so we can see it more easily and it’s more easy to see why it’s wrong. So we don’t want ourselves or the white characters we love to be associated with THAT.

But rather than stopping there, we should take the lesson taught to us and allow it to reflect on how we view the story as a whole. How do we view our own emotional relationship to the characters in this context, and how do we or don’t we relate to them and why?

-------

Louis in the present is very rich and thus somewhat outside of the restraints still put on racialized people in our modern world. But I hope the series will keep the way they are incorporating race, gender and sexuality in the past story line in the present story line as well. So far we’ve only seen our modern day vampire(s) interact with one person: Daniel. So it hasn't really come up. Aside maybe from the way Daniel sees no issue with interrupting Rashid during prayer (which could be read as a comment about the way western anti-religious people often have low respect for religiosity, especially non-Christian religiosity. But tbh I don't think it's THAT deep and just another random incident of Daniel being a bit blunt and a bit rude). But I wonder how things might change once we step outside of that tower in Dubai and meet other vampires and see how they interact with the world.

And maybe there is also a comment about race in how present day Louis chooses to surround himself with a majority of non-white humans in Dubai. Now that he is in a situation where he gets to make the rules about who he keeps around, how and where he lives, and how he sustains himself, this is the environment he had built for himself. He is rich enough to exist outside of a human-made white majority power structure, and rich enough to have human blood without going against his personal moral codex.

That seems like a pretty perfect situation from the perspective of past!Louis. But even if we can say that he has achieved to break free from a lot of the restraints of a racist and homophobic world in the present day, he still doesn’t seem like he enjoys the kind of life he has now, living nearly alone in that beautiful but also cold and sterile tower...

[deciduouswaves]

So first, this:

"Those things don't evaporate once we transition they're fucking internalized. I constantly have to remind myself I'm allowed to exist. We don't stop dealing with misogyny."

I feel inadequate at expressing this to a stranger, but: I sorrow for the wounds in your heart caused by years of harms, and the wounds that are continuously inflicted by a transphobic world determined to see us as whichever gender allows us to undergo the most harm in the moment (as seen by some women's only shelters not admitting trans men *or* trans women).

And then, excuse the academic enthusiasm, but:

The post as a whole shows an overlap between the experience of trans men and trans women which might be useful for understanding trans socialization as well building community:

I was seen as "unusually nurturing" and so ended up doing a lot of free childcare not just for my siblings and cousins but for other kids in my church community.

I was seen as fastidious so I was given housework my cousins and siblings were never given as young as I was, and sometimes they were never given those chores as long as they lived with family.

Nobody told me directly not to take up space but those messages existed around me and I knew they applied to me despite the fact that the speakers did not, so for instance I always kept my backpack on my lap so it wouldn't inconvenience anyone, and kept my limbs close to my body when seated.

Nobody externally applied feminine beauty standards to me individually, but those standards existed around me and I knew I wasn't reaching them (and didn't have the skills to reach them), and so my parents were baffled when I considered myself ugly, because I was using a different rubric than they were.

I knew the modesty standards of my church should be applied to me if they should apply to anyone, so I followed them, and didn't show flesh between neck and knees except for arms just above the elbows down.

The being pitted against other girls is the one item on the list which is unfamiliar to me.

I was peer excluded from "male" activities as well as "female" ones, because boys perceived me as feminine and girls saw my haircut and clothes (and later, masculinized body) and decided my femininity was insufficient to overcome those aspects of presentation.

And by the same coin I was certainly treated as lesser by the cishet boys: the words "freak" and "fag" came up a lot once I got to middle school, as well as girl being used as an insult (that one - for *some* reason - wasn't terribly effective).

And while I do think it's interesting and a basis for shared understanding between trans masc and trans femme folks to think about how being "socialized trans" has a lot of overlap regardless of AGAB, I also want to return to the beginning of the previous post for a moment:

"I feel like people forget most trans guys still had to grow up as girls."

May more trans folks be allowed to grow up as themselves in the future.

I feel like people forget most trans guys still had to grow up as girls.

We were still forced to be mature early

We were still told to not to take up space

We were still subject to female beauty standards

Our bodies were still treated as inappropriate

We were still pitted against each other

We were still excluded from “male” activities

We were still treated as lesser the boys

Those things don’t evaporate once we transition they’re fucking internalized. I constantly have to remind myself I’m allowed to exist. We don’t stop dealing with misogyny.