#and at that point it just reads as hating women

[tboyfrnkiero]

[id: the first screenshot is a tumblr post. it reads:

"as for "why not have transandrophobia?" i think the biggest thing is something a mutual of mine pointed out- that it naturally kinda equivocates itself with transmisogyny in a way that is threatening to transfems and can be used to turn a discussion on transmisogyny into a he-said-she-said ("is he being transmisogynistic, or is SHE being transandrophobic? who knows!") it also just is the case that almost all of the people using using this word are, like you said, trying to make that equivocation themselves; transunity types.

i have recently seen the word "transemasculation" thrown around, and... i don't think any idea is Asshole Proof but the idea that specifically we are talking about attempts to strip transmascs of their masculinity, rather than blanket "hating transmascs" makes it harder to weaponize this verbiage against transfeminism and to make that equivocation. i'm hopeful, but there is a very real chance that in a year it will be coopted by the same sort of "lateral aggression" types we see today rallying under transandrophobia."

the second screenshot is also a tumblr post. it reads:

"terms like transmisandry are a way of dodging this. if we say transmisogyny is discrimination against transfems and transmisandry is against transmascs, it removes the ability of trans men to oppress trans women. this [pt: this (italized)] is why the term is harmful. it is important to talk about"

/ end id]

Gonna be the big bad of the transandrophobia discourse for a sec and say that I believe in destruction of any theory that relies on claiming one group of trans people oppresses another on the basis of gender. It doesn't reflect the reality and is cruel.

You can have transfeminism that's not based on radical feminism.

[genderqueerdykes]

How can a trans man be a lesbian? And if they are, does it seem like erasure of women loving women? I read history before that lesbians weren’t really accepted into the community until they did something big and helpful, then it changed to LGBTQ. (I’m sick so I don’t have a good memory but you probably know what I’m talking about). I’m wanting to learn and be respectful. But I did grow up in a conservative area with conservative homophobic parents. I’m afab romantically attracted to women. So I am interested in the ‘change’ in definition of lesbian I’ve seen online.

nah trans men being lesbians isn't erasing anything, but your current attitude is. lesbian does not mean "Woman loving woman". that's what woman loving woman means. wlw. you actually used the term you meant. they're not synonyms. they can mean similar things to different people but they're not synonyms, hense why the term "woman loving woman" exists. this is the literal, exact reason why WLW exists!

it's not "erasure of women loving women" if someone is a woman loving woman, they are more than welcome to use that exact term.

this mentality is actually what's erasing parts of lesbianism. lesbians are not vulnerable women who need protecting from men. some lesbians have multiple genders. some lesbians were men at one point before coming out as another gender. some lesbians are genderfluid. some lesbians are gnc. the butches who are men genuinely, really exist and it's time for people to stop ignoring us.

take for a moment to consider how this line of thinking completely leaves out intersex people, genderfluid people, bigender people, non binary people, genderqueer people, gender non conforming people, transmasculine butches, transfem lesbians who haven't come out yet, trans women who are also men, and other lesbians. this line of thinking affects so many people.

ask yourself why you prioritize the needs of the cis female lesbian community. why do you prioritize the needs of cis people over the needs of the entire rest of their community? why is it hard for one to think about the absolute myriad of ways that lesbians can be men. like genuinely think about it for a second. why is it in anyone's best interest to make the lesbian community the cis women who hate men club? that's just the terf and rad fem communities. if that's what you want, that's where you'll find it.

one type of person being a lesbian does not erase all other lesbians, that argument is pointless. genuinely try to think about it again, because it makes no sense. how does that even work? how does a genderfluid or multigender or transmasculine person being a lesbian erase "women loving women"? a trans man being a lesbian doesn't erase the lesbians who are women. that's not how that works, lesbianism isn't a monolith- it's a space with open doors. diversity in lesbianism is what helps it thrive

this type of behavior on the other hand is what erases vital parts of the lesbian community. you need to ask yourself why it's difficult for you to see that this behavior is the problem. lesbian isn't the most restrictive label in the community. it's not a box. there will always be male, masc, non binary, genderfluid, genderqueer, multigender, two spirit and other lesbians who are not just women, if women at all. that's not a bad thing. embrace diversity

[elrielsgarden]

As evidenced by many a comment and post, yes, they do. At the very least when it comes to Elain Archeron.

And it’s largely, from what I have seen, women saying these things while still uplifting characters such as Feyre, Nesta, etc. Why has the major girlbossification of female characters been taken so far we have now circled back and missed the point of feminism? It is good to be more traditionally feminine, or to go slay enemies (if you’re in a fantasy novel anyways), or to be some wonderful combination of those sorts of traits. One is not “good” while the other is “useless.”

Elain is similar in many ways to Elide and Yrene, from the Throne of Glass series. But they are each individual presences, their own person. I also cannot accurately describe Elide or Yrene to be “popular” in the ToG fandom; it is rare indeed that I find someone whose favorite character is one of these ladies (I personally adore them). And one cannot properly compare their story arcs to then say that people don’t hate the two women from ToG because they’re perhaps more traditionally feminine (which in many ways I might argue against, if you’re comparing simply their more “feminine” traits)—and so readers don’t hate Elain for this reason. In fact, the hate for Elain seems to come from a lack of reason.

The very fact that, despite their similarities, Elide and Yrene are loved while Elain is not would indicate just how this hatred lacks reason and is indeed based on a superficial judgement of character based solely on Elain’s more traditionally feminine traits.

Elain has a presence. An absolutely essential one. And her story is not complete, meaning she will grow and surprise us in beautiful ways.

Good. I don’t want Elain to be perfect. She isn’t perfect. Aside from “plot devices” that aid good storytelling, a perfect character is not worth reading about. No human is perfect—so why should we be interested in the life of a perfect fictional character? Find a character, in book or other media, that’s perfect. I’ll wait.

Elain can be gentle, kind, and a dreamer while still being a beautifully flawed character. That is what makes a good story. A good character who readers can get behind, but who also messes up, has flaws, and finds or creates ways to overcome those very flaws.

I don’t buy this for even a second. Assuming that sweetness/gentleness and flaws can’t both contribute to what makes a character who they are is quite simply incorrect. You maybe don’t “buy the nice persona” of someone like Amarantha, when she tricked Prythian. That logic simply does not apply to Elain. She is kind, gentle, a dreamer. And flawed, too. Every character is layered. The whole of the rest of the inner circle. As Elain is, too.

Elain is disliked because readers choose to look past and away from her gentle, nurturing qualities, instead labelling her as “useless,” “boring,” and “personality-proof.” All that tells me is that you did not read the books, not truly. You took one cursory glance at her, missing every moment of her trauma, every part of what makes her who she is.

Nesta’s flaws are louder—darker, perhaps. This, too, drew hatred from readers. I never hated her, just as I never hated Elain. I saw a deeply wounded and traumatized character, who dealt with that in different ways than her sisters did—because her flaws are not the same as theirs, because she possesses different strengths and good qualities than her sisters. Nesta’s journey of healing was beautiful. As Feyre’s was. As Elain’s has begun and will continue to be.

To not identify with a character is perfectly acceptable. To dismiss and discard someone simply because one hates her kindness says many things about the reader who does this, about the ideas society has cultivated.

Elain is a beautiful character. To dismiss her is to dismiss every reader who identifies with her gentle soul. 🌸

[robertsbarbie]

as long as i live i will never find a person with more audacity than male graphic designers

[elljayvee]

I loved this show when it was in first run, for reasons I (a baby bisexual) did not understand at the time. I adored Michael & Joey's relationship. Looking back on it as an adult, part of what I liked was that it (almost certainly unintentionally) casually depicted bisexuality and aromanticism, and also part of what I liked was that it also (...probably more intentionally) depicted a world with much lower homophobia and missing the AIDS crisis.

You're supposed to read Michael & Joey's relationship with each other as a couple in some ways, but not in others. They're practically married (the show makes this point several times, most clearly in "Joey's Mother-in-Law"), but they're (probably) not having sex: they're having sex with women, but they're Super Weird about it -- this is partly Sitcom, partly Dated Sexist Nonsense, but also partly Inherent To This Particular Family Setup. It ends up feeling to me very much like two men who aren't...really...sure how to deal with feelings for each other that are sexual/possibly romantic when they clearly feel attraction to women. Do you know how many bisexuals go through this. For years. For decades. Sometimes I, a bisexual who has been out since the 1990s, ask myself if I am "really" bi. It's a fucking brainworm that so many of us have. This show, in its own way, laid that problem out before me as if someone out there understood it.

As for the aromanticism, Joey says in the pilot that Marcy is the last woman he loved. He has a whole relationship with a different woman not because he loves her but because he wants to dad her kid. This man is sexually, but largely not romantically, attracted to women. (Is he in love with Michael romantically? I don't know! Maybe! He's definitely in Kinda Obsessed with Michael, though.)

And then....it's in a kinder, gentler, less homophobic world where no one is dying. And that's....almost certainly just a product of it being a sitcom from the 1980s. You weren't going to address those topics in a sitcom about "what if the Odd Couple had to raise a kid lol", but as a result, for me, I get a combo of Powerful Nostalgia Bomb and Everything is Beautiful And Nothing Hurts from this show. It's not that other characters don't react to two men raising a kid together, because they do -- but mostly they are a little puzzled about it. No one is hateful. No one attacks them over it. The only times that judgement of the relationship is more than a passing event ("Joey's Mother-in-Law" is yet again an example), the person being weird about it is dealt with firmly and clearly.

It has its flaws (....1980s sitcom....) but oh. it has its joys.

(I refuse to acknowledge the final episode, though: it's up there with HIMYM for betraying the show before it. I'm convinced that was the network just being like "well. we can't have the show's finale be. they continue to live together." in my heart they continue to live together. they don't talk about it ever until Nicole leaves for college and then they both panic and agree obviously. they can't split up. where will Nicole go for winter break if Michael moves out? Joey panics and has sex with way too many people about it while drawing 3 million pictures of Michael in his sketchbook. Michael dates like normal but feels weirdly sad every time he kisses his dates. It's fine. It's all fine. Nicole comes home for Thanksgiving and is like. Dads. What is up?? Joey's art is depressing and Michael is working 80 hour weeks? Maybe you two should get a dog. Three weeks later Joey comes home with a three-legged golden retriever and Michael has a sobbing breakdown into its fur and falls asleep in Joey's bed. No they do not get it together after this, they are both disaster bisexuals, this goes on for SEVERAL more years.)

“My Two Dads” was Simply Ahead of its Time: A Short Essay by an Offspring of Same-Sex Parents

In 1987, the show “My Two Dads” premiered on NBC, staring Paul Reiser, Greg Evigan, Staci Keanan, and Florence Stanley. Nicole Bradford (Keanan) is a 12-year-old girl whose mother Marcy Bradford dies suddenly, and she is “willed” more or less to two men her mother was once in love with, Michael Taylor (Reiser) and Joey Harris (Evigan), who were lifelong friends before they fought over Nicole’s mother. Despite attempts at blood tests, the paternity of the child was never confirmed, and after a rocky start, Michael and Joey agree to live together and raise Nicole as a family.

What we have here is a simple, relatively family friendly, prime-time sitcom that shows a very positive interpretation of a kid with same-sex parents. And it is delightful.

I am speaking openly as a queer person raised by two mothers (now four w/step-moms). When I decided to try this, I was bracing myself for the absolute worst most offensive thing I’d ever seen.

And I swear to God, what I got instead is one of my new favorite shows of all time. The characters are lovable and well-rounded, the acting is great, the humor is actually funny, and, whether this was intentional or not, is one of the most progressive shows of its time.

I keep seeing people throwing around the word “homophobic” with this show, and I’m here to politely and firmly disagree with that. Instead, I will opt for the word “dated.” “My Two Dads” was still a product of its time, so I firmly believe many of the choices regarding Joey and Michael’s dating life were made to appease the censors. I never felt like any decision was made in malice to target the queer community. (Not to mention, I could/will make a whole LIST of reasons why Michael and Joey are 100% in love, if not an active couple, despite many attempts to convince the audience they are straight.)

I spent a good chunk of the show laughing to myself and saying “it’s like homosexuality doesn’t even exist in this universe” for how much NOBODY cares about Nicole having two dads or questioning why the dads live together. (Them being potentially gay is only questioned ONCE in the series.)

In the 90s and early 2000s, people never shut up with the questions once I told them I had two moms. I somewhat think this exclusion was also a writing tactic, not wanting Nicole to have to constantly repeat what the audience already knows.

There are jokes that haven’t aged amazingly well, but I feel like it was much more that the writers were ignorant as opposed to being active bigots.

I also really appreciated this show’s depiction of a kid who has a great and loving relationship with a parent she may not be or isn’t biologically related to. Nicole doesn’t care who her biological father is, and loves Joey and Michael equally. Again, as someone with two moms, I get really defensive over the notion that someone isn’t your real parent unless their DNA matches yours. (Side note, always say “biologically related to” as opposed to “REAL parent” whenever asking someone about their parentage. Please. It hurts every time.)

If I admittedly had one qualm about the show, I’d say it hasn’t aged amazing in terms of sexism. Throughout the whole show, it always felt like the women Michael and Joey dated were either complete jerks or bimbos. With the women they finally end up with being boring and rushed. And they also at one point have a female boss, and…it’s pretty bad. Nicole and Judge Margaret were great (Judge being my 2nd favorite character, behind Michael.), but other female characters not so much.

But overall, I really do love this show. It’s one of those really nice warm & fuzzy shows, too (Think “Full House” with slightly funnier writing. Yeah, I said it!). I really wish more queer viewers would try it.

[bumblingbabooshka]

Thinking about marriage/women's rights on Vulcan Some may think that T'Pring not being allowed to divorce Spock was because he was going through the pon farr but if she were allowed to divorce him at all she probably would have done that a long time ago, confirmed by T'Pol when she's speaking with Koss, who isn't suffering from the pon farr. She says that he can choose another mate (without invoking a fight it seems: note the difference between a 'mate' and a 'challenger') and after he makes it clear that nothing she says will change his mind about marrying her, she finally threatens to declare a kal-if-fee. It's clear that Vulcan women cannot divorce/refuse to marry a man they've been betrothed to under any circumstances if A) He himself doesn't consent to ending their marriage or B) She doesn't have someone else waiting in the wings to be given to in his stead. Though, if the challenger she selects fails to win the fight, she'll have to marry her betrothed anyway unless (again) he decides he doesn't want her after the challenge. That seems like an incredibly unfair system, heavily biased towards men. SNW is an alternate universe in many obvious respects but most egregiously in that T'Pring has a lot of non-canonical agency over her relationship with Spock. It's interesting to me that Vulcan society has women in many positions of power and treats women as equal to men from what I've seen despite these laws. We don't really see Vulcans exhibiting a misogynistic attitude towards women in general but in TOS (perhaps because of its general writing style but it's still interesting to note) both Sarek and Spock take on patriarchal attitudes specifically regarding wives. Amanda says that 'of course' Sarek commands her because "he is a Vulcan and I am his wife." It's worthwhile in my eyes to note that she specifies 'wife' instead of attributing this attitude to women as a whole. Again, with TOS' writing style it wouldn't be out of place for her to say "he is a man and I am a woman." Spock, while in a pon farr induced irritation, states that it's "undignified for a woman to play servant to a man that isn't hers" - again implying that there's something specific about being a Wife in Vulcan society which is different from being a woman in general and demands subservience to a husband. This could perhaps stem from the extreme sense of ownership that Vulcan law has permitted men to have over women. A woman legally cannot point blank refuse marriage. There is no option which guarantees she won't have to marry her betrothed other than death. When T'Pau speaks of T'Pring she refers to her as being 'property' and Stonn, before being interrupted, states he's made 'the ancient claim' - we don't know what this is because he gets cut off but it's obvious they're both using the language of Vulcan law. Men are permitted true freedom to choose. If a woman wants to choose someone else to be with there is no option available to her other than the kal-if-fee which might result in the death of the one she wants to be with. And, if her lover fails, her husband can still just decide he wants to marry her and she'll be forced to. T'Pring gives two scenarios: One where Spock 'frees' her and one where he doesn't - it's still ultimately his decision which is clear when he ends the conversation with "Stonn, she is yours." This again isn't just because of the pon farr as T'Pol also goes through this. Koss can choose another mate and when the option is talked about there's no implication that this would result in any sort of fight (both by the casualness of its mention and by the fact that there's no formal word for it unlike the kal-if-fee.) Also, the fact that Koss does eventually grant T'Pol a divorce and it's all fine means that T'Pol isn't lawfully required to have another man waiting if her HUSBAND doesn't want her. It's ONLY required if SHE doesn't want her husband. Tradition must take precedence over individual desire UNLESS!!! You're a man. Then it's fine. Like, your parents might not be happy but legally you're golden.

[lightleckrereins]

No one had netflix releases a good adaptation of a Latin American literature classic that was considered impossible to adapt to screen on the bingo card.

Even less after the netflix releases a decent but nothing more adaptation of another latam classic also considered impossible to adapt. And the HBO butchers a third one that should be easy to adapt and perfectly setup for a tv show incidents in the past few months.

[uncanny-tranny]

I promise you can speak about and denounce undesirable behaviour without attributing it to some in-born, immutable, unchanging trait that you must "civilize" away.

In this specific instance that inspired this, you really don't need to attribute bad behaviour that's done by a man with unchanging character traits. This isn't even solely about men, because doing this affects everyone, men included.

"Men needed to be civilized out of behaving this way!" Who are you expecting to be doing the civilizing and why? This is just defending the idea that women are responsible for training up men - the millenia-old idea that a man's failings are actually a woman's fault, not his.

As a man, I am responsible for my actions. You don't need to dehumanize me in order to preserve your misogyny and your need to hate a group of men. Don't get me wrong, this rhetoric absolutely is not good for men to face. It especially targets men who have experiences with marginalized identities. If you're on my page, you know that this is something I deal with personally, have personal stakes in that affect my life daily. I just also think we really need to remember that this issue exists in a context where women and other folks will inevitably be punished as a direct result of these ideas as well.

I need to make that last part emphatically clear: even if this rhetoric (somehow) only hurt men, it would still be wrong. It would still be wrong! I want to - as a man - remind people (especially those who already have decided to dehumanize entire groups of people) that nobody is safe from being exempt from punishment due to this rhetoric.

[gods-favorite-autistic]

Alright who had people being fine with a bi guy but not a bi girl in the exact same piece of media on their Bridgerton card

[genderqueerdykes]

Hi. Here's a lot of words that y'all don't have to read and I have a question that y'all don't have to answer. I think you all make a lot of great points. I'm sorry if this is on the blog already.

I think I might be what you call an egg. I just try not to think about it. I'm going through a lot of stuff right now that needs processing and I can get to the gender thing when I can get to the gender thing. That said, I'm trying to let myself exist in queer spaces and it feels like everyday women are bashing men without batting an eye. Actually, that's happening not just in queer spaces. Nobody says anything except to agree. Even people that I've known for a while and know that I'm married to a cis man whom I love and respect (and who actually got me interested in feminism). I told one friend that I was uncomfortable by her comments and she flipped it around, pouted exasperatedly, and said, "I thought you were a safe space!" I didn't know that there was a safe space for sexism!

What the fuck do I say to people? I'm autistic and have an extreme sense of justice and can't just let things go but I want to be at least somewhat respectful-sounding because when you yell at people they shut down and think you're wrong/the problem. I also don't want to talk their ears off/write paragraphs like this. 😬

🌀

jesus, i'm so sorry people are treating you like that. it really hurts my head to see people do this. you don't deserve that kind of behavior, you're not a shitty person for trying to figure out your gender. you're not shitty for being happily married to a cis man. i have so many words so i hope i won't give you a reply that's too long to parse

no matter what people's beliefs are, everyone is reinforcing that women need to hate men. like you're right it's just everywhere. not just queer communities. it's weird. it's like, i get it, the way we force men to act is absurd. we need to focus on helping men snap out of the shitty things we force them to do and support them in growing and changing. also like i don't get how people dont see how terrible it is to openly admit that they see trans men, queer men, gay men, bi men, disabled men, men of color, intersex men, multigender men, and so on. there are so many groups of men affected by this i dont get why people don't care

this "safe space" thing has gotten abused to hell and back. it's out of control, now it's being used as a gatekeeping tool. it's weird to me but people are defining things like this:

general lgbt/queer communities = women's safe space

lesbian community = women's safe space

nonbinary community = women's safe space

butch, gender non conforming, genderqueer community = women's safe space

genderfluid, bigender, multigender communities = women's safe space

bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, & polyamorous communities: women's safe space

like it's gotten way out of control. people think that every experience that doesn't outright say man is a women's safe space. and even then, we see entitlement there in the transmasculine and trans man communities as well. the thing is is like. these are intended to be communities. not safe spaces. like

women's groups exist. there are groups dedicated to providing safe spaces for just women, irl. a lot of the time they're based out of crisis and sexual assault survivor clinics, but there's also ones for homeless women, and so on. like i honestly guarantee you that if you googled "women's safe space" you'd find some local, brick and mortar places designed to be there for women and only women. like. those. exist.

we don't have to turn the entirety of queerness into a women's safe space. i feel like women who have been hurt by men are running to the wrong place a lot of the time. or they expect every other queer person to have the same trauma as them. like i think people in general are very queerphobic and assume that most queer people are women, for some reason?

i don't know why people view this as the "running away from men club". that's how terfs define the lesbian community. if you want to show people why this is dogshit, it's because that's literally how terfs define lesbianism. that's how rad fems define lesbianism. the "we hate men, we never want to be around men ever again, men are inherently dangerous" club is the lesbian separatism club.

people often say "why is there a lot of talk of lesbian supremacy lately?"

it's because so many people got indoctrinated into rad feminism without ever realizing it. queer communities are not the "we hate men" communities. those are rad fem communities.

so many queer spaces need to involve men, because men are very important in so many queer experiences. erasing their experiences and denying them the right to be in those spaces isn't helping anyone. if people want to be in all woman groups, they need to search specifically for that. if someone defines "lesbian" as "women's only safe space," they're looking for a women's space. honestly, maybe people just need to be nudged in the right direction. maybe not enough people know there are literal all woman safe spaces irl that help women with homelessness, sexual and domestic abuse, childcare, substance abuse, mental health, and many other resources.

sometimes there are behavioral health and crisis centers that accept just women. some psychiatric hospitals have spaces for just women. it really is possible to create, nurture and participate in womens only spaces. people are just trying to take over something they personally don't belong in, and it's insane that that's the norm right now. people are obsessed with going backwards in terms of progress in accepting diversity in queer lives.

anyway, i hate this shit, so i hope things improve for you soon, people are just. so proud of being mean right now. people are proud to be assholes and they take it out on disadvantaged men. isn't that sad? people are pissed off about patriarchy, the establishment ABOVE us, so they attack poor, mentally ill, disabled, neurodivergent, intersex, trans, queer men and men of color, as if that'll solve anything.

[rainingmbappe]

The rise of "let people enjoy things" is single handedly the backbone of the rise of anti intellectualism

[monards]

can a girl ramble aboutthe way you can interpret so many parts of the propaganda and characterization of rhine by other the people/general populace of teyvat as people largely antagonizing neurodivergent traits without being chased with pitchforks and torches.

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 6!!!

[kara-zor-els]

Someone needs to keep Barbara Gordon far away from titans/nightwing stans

[cryptidowl]

Making Lucanis’ boyfriend prefer tea so he can make Lucanis join him for late night tea and let him fall asleep in his arms and being cozy in his bf’s lap is one of the few things he and Spite can agree fucks severely

[musical-chick-13]

It is because these people are stupid. Hope this helps.