#and does NOT have to correlate At All to our gender Identity

[tigsbitties]

you there. i wanna ask you a question. In the Dialtown Phone Dating Sim Universe would yaoi be a word used to describe m/m pairings like it is in our world or would it be used to describe pairings between two phone headed people? I ask because out of universe Oliver and Karen are both described as "gay", but this only extends to them wanting to date exclusively phones or typewriters-- gender doesn't actually factor into the equation at all. And from an out of universe perspective it is simply set up this way as a compromise so characters don't all have to be vaguely bisexual but players don't have to play the game as any specific gender if they don't want to. Which is all well and good. but it opens a beautiful world of implications.

First. we have to ask ourselves if this is the standard everywhere or just how these two specific characters experience sexuality. Like there very well could be characters who are, for example, exclusively attracted to women and the head type doesn't matter. The topic simply isn't explored enough in depth within the game itself to make any definitive conclusions--but i have to assume there's variation on this given the nature of human sexuality is hardly rigid.

It should be noted that head type and gender often going together but not necessarily correlating is a progressive stance in universe. Typewriter=girl and phone=boy is both, likely seen as a more rigid, unchangeable rule by more conservative people and is something that the game itself doesn't really challenge outside of the player character. There are no canonical phone women or typewriter men npcs in the game. So even in Dialtown, a place said to be more progressive than other areas in terms of object head politics on account of being its origin point, its not particularly common. And the assumption is if your head doesn't correlate with your gender identity than you would want to change it.

But like. Gingi can't be the only person with the potential to defy this. statistically speaking. There have to be phone women and typewriter men who either can't get their head changed for one heath reason or another or simply want to have their head not one to one correlate with their gender either as an expression of identity or occupation. I'm sure their are male journalists or authors who have typewriter heads or female telemarketers or hotline operators with phone heads for the sake of convenience who have nothing extraordinary to say about their genders otherwise. After all, occupation seems to outrank gender in terms of head presentation, at least in Dialtown.

Plus, the head type gender dichotomy is extremely arbitrary (as all socially gendered things are) and is only set up that way because one guy 50 some years ago liked the idea. But that doesn't change what is and isn't considered ""normal"" in the game's world. Is head/gender discrepancy a big enough issue to have a bearing on pop culture? is yaoi only yaoi if its both m/m AND phone/phone because thats the baseline expectation or does only one half of the equation have to be true and if so WHICH takes precedent

[dykeulous]

I'll also offer my thoughts on your post about being cis or not. I'm very tired and tend to devolve into word salad when I'm sleepy so apologies if any of this is scrambeled.

The issue is that it's such a basic term. If one truly only conceptualizes themselves as their AGAB, it becomes a matter of semantics and a seemingly impossible gulf in how we see reality, because to you that's an inherently gender neutral act but to most trans people dividing people exclusively between Male and Female is just dividing them between Man and Woman. Our conceptualization of "female" is on totally different planets.

So it's like, okay, Radfem A doesn't believe in gender, and identifies as lacking a gender. So she's agender? Because that's what it sounds like, but I get that that is itself a gender identity. She can call herself whatever she likes, or not be called whatever she likes, but for her to just go "well I'm just a Female" is at least as much a gender identity since it happens to be the only way most radfems - explicit TERFs, I mean - have conceptualized gender, and how it's been conceptualized by most of humanity for most of history.

It's exceptionally difficult to try and make these two worldviews compatible because at the end of the day you can call a trans woman a woman but that doesn't really mean anything if she's also a male in the way a cis man is. The TIRF viewpoint seems to me to be just dressing up TERFery with trans affirming language. So it's like, okay, someone is doesn't have a gender, but agender still too much identification, so they identify as Female which isn't the same as woman or girl, which means they aren't cis but they aren't trans...again, no one has to identify as anything they don't want to, but it's hard to make any of trans identity at all work with these ideas, because it treats Male and Female as essentially Trve Gender.

Being cis does mean, essentially, not being trans, or at least it does to most** trans people the way certain sexual characteristics make someone female to you. There could be greater discussion on how to talk about people who are dysphoric but do not identify as trans, but the biggest part of the split in ideology here is on such a fundamental level that's very hard to do. Elon Musk was completely ridiculous when he got upset about being called cis and I could never change my mind on that. The absolute aversion to simply being called trans doesn't make sense to me even though I try to understand and respect people who would want to avoid it because they don't feel it matches it them. And then that's a problem, because they feel excluded, but they're the ones refusing to be considered trans in the first place? Like, someone who has dysphoria like that but rejects the label would just be a cis person with dysphoria, I would think.

I personally would support people who identify as their AGAB, but have dysphoria, as being trans without them having to be something else, if that was the primary issue.

*emphasis on most

**again, emphasis on most

thank you for sharing your perspective. that means a lot to me.

yes, “cis” is a very basic, one-dimensional word, and that is the problem. i see & understand that a lot of trans people get upset at the classification of female/male & correlate it to simple categorization of woman/man– because dysphoria, after all, is a condition that includes certain triggers, so i’m not going to complain about that (because i understand). but even before i got into radical feminism, i never really was upset about being called female; like you point out, it was simply gender neutral to me. it was a fact of life. just like it is to me now; a completely neutral, grey fact of life. of course, the way i view it is somewhat different to the way cis radfems do, since i am dysphoric, and i do have a different relationship with my sex characteristics than non-dysphoric people do: but ultimately, i understand that it is a neutral aspect of the human body, and i do my very best not to connate it with any gender stuff.

that being said, i don’t think it’s fair to say that a radfem (or any cis woman for that matter) who says she doesn’t identify as a woman, and rather just is female, has a gender identity “in her own way”. the trans community & the radfem community have a lot of ideological conflicts, which is why i understand why you would think this way. however, to me (i won’t say “us” because i know a lot of radfems disagree with me on this anyway & i don’t want to spread misinformation on general radfem beliefs), “female” is just a neutral state of being, while “woman” is the socio-economic class that was coercively ascribed to the female body. a lot of radfems are going to say, “i am a woman because i am female and a woman is an adult female human”, but i personally believe that is way too simplistic. most of the time, a woman is an adult female human– but i don’t strictly associate this with biology. i recognize two sets of gender: a) gender class and b) gender identity. a lot of radfems are going to tell you, “sex is material reality, gender is not”– which i disagree with. gender identity isn’t material reality. gender identity is personal, mutable, malleable, subjective (however still a production of gender existing as a division of the working-class), however; gender class is material. your experiences rely on gender class, and how you are perceived in society. that doesn’t mean that there is some inherent value to gender class, or that there is a scientific basis to it– it simply means that it is your lived experience, your material reality– which is most of the time, but not always, ascribed to your sex/biology.

i also do not believe that tirfs are “trying to cover their terfery up with trans affirming language”. i do not mean this offensively, but if you’re constantly looking for secret agents & traitors, you are efficiently locking yourself up in an echo-chamber. someone validating & acknowledging trans women’s gender identity, and also taking into consideration their lived experience as women if they have transitioned into the gender class of woman, while simultaneously not erasing the fact that they are male– is not trying to “cover their inner transphobia”. they are simply stating facts. i think the problem here is that you believe radfems hold some fundamental belief of having to do something in order to be male. “at the end of the day, you can call a trans woman a woman, but that doesn’t really mean anything if she’s also male in the way a cis man is”– a trans woman cannot “be male in the way a cis man is”, because a trans woman is a trans woman, not a cis man. i do not believe that anyone can be male in any way, someone just is male. radfems do not view male biology as something inherently evil, monstrous, oppressive, disgusting, or something to be distanced from. we do not believe there is a right or wrong way to be male, and we do not view the male biology as our enemy: we hold the system as our enemy. i understand your deep desire to distance your own self from it, because after all, you are dysphoric; but take this with a grain of salt; acknowledging that you are male, and that this does not define you in any way, shape, or form; and that you still can keep your subjective gender identity, as well as medically migrate into the woman gender class if you so wish– will probably ease your dysphoria a million times. i know it did mine. you can change your sex characteristics, but ultimately you cannot change your sex, the clear canvas that should carry no gendered connotations at all.

i will also acknowledge that some radfems are, in fact, attempting to “revert back to sex categorization instead of gender categorization”, or how you here point it out; “gender has been conceptualized that way throughout the whole of history”. however, i still believe we have somewhat of a different understanding of this. a lot of radfems don’t understand that in order to abolish gender, we also need to abolish sex categorization. that doesn’t mean, “ignore the fact that there are legitimate anatomical differences”, it means– “acknowledge that those anatomical differences hold no social significance whatsoever, and acknowledge the fact that these very anatomical differences have been appropriated by the patriarchy in order to justify the creation of the cultural system of gender”. after the neolithic revolution, female humans became secondary, and this marks the emergence of gender as the ideological, religious, and cultural system, a.k.a. the beginning of ascribing gender to one’s biology. then followed sex categorization, the canonization & essentialization of the gender system; this meant using pseudoscientific measures & approaches to “justify” why males had superior biology, and thus the man class is & should be the natural leader. you are, however, wrong in the fact that “this is just how it has always been”, because human history did not begin at neolithic, and it certainly did not stop there, either. for most of our history, humans have lived in quite egalitarian communes, where neither gender nor sex categorization existed. gender as a system of exploitation expands, develops, evolves, and varies from culture to culture. as an example, we are currently stuck up in the imperialistic view of the colonial binary gender system: this doesn’t mean that the gender systems prior to imperialism were somehow more progressive or less oppressive, it simply means that the gender system has evolved to fit the current era, which is the highest stage of capitalism.

essentially, we cannot separate sex categorization from gender. both need to be dismantled. for that, we need gender communism, or gender acceleration– the process of speeding up, or accelerating gender, until it no longer has any meaning [which it doesn’t on a scientific level, but it certainly does on a socio-cultural one]. humans have lived in egalitarian communes before, or as karl marx explained it through historical materialism; primitive communism. we are currently living under the highest stage of capitalism, and we need to reach for the better, the final stage of human society; communism. anatomical differences between females & males are real, but no classification has any fundamental or scientific basis that explains the gendering of human biology. neither sex is better nor worse, neither sex is superior nor inferior, and neither sex has any inherent personality traits, hobbies, iq, abilities, or capabilities. there is no right or wrong way to be female or male. there is no scientific basis that supports gender identity, it simply exists because of the division of gender, and the division of gender exists because of the patriarchy.

i appreciate your open-mindedness on the existence of dysphoric people who aren’t trans-identified, and for respecting their choice of not wanting to be called trans, while trying to also include them in your conversations about dysphoria. that does clear up some of my concerns, however i will still say that this certainly is not the opinion of the majority of the trans community, or at least how i have seen it. i do ultimately believe it is absurd & ridiculous to be extremely upset at being called cis, as it was originally just meant to be a harmless distinction between trans & non-trans people, and it would be downright insensitive to take away the right of an oppressed group to name the people who aren’t part of their specific social class.

[pokegyns]

Sex dysphoria as an incongruous body map is the most sensical, persuasive and not-misogynistic argument for the innateness of gender identity I've ever seen, much more than I've ever got from a TRA, but then you start talking about young future-transwomen showing culture-bound signifiers of femininity in very young childhood. Why would there be any correlation between sex incongruity and gender nonconformity? You specifically say that this is even before they are aware of their own incongruity. Why? Are you saying it's a form of extremely subconscious mimicry of the gender roles of the sex the brain believes its body is? Even before the child even understands the sex-gender connection?

I can tell you're not saying that gnc=trans, I'm not misreading you quite that badly. But what could a correlation between sex incongruity and childhood gender nonconformity imply except either terfism or bioessentualism?

I'm asking in pure good faith. I want to believe.

i do not believe there is an innate, inherent biological connection between sex incongruency & gender nonconformity. however, due to societal indoctrination & environmental circumstances, sex incongruous children most of the time do not feel connected with their peers of the same sex. gender is not just a bystander, it is a large system and a huge superstructure that is built in every aspect of our society. it is something that can have war-torn impacts on people, and i think we all can see the way that this system uniquely disadvantages & impairs sex incongruous & dysphoric people– which does have a very lasting effect on dysphoric children. as children are most of the time raised under a strict gender binary, under the [current] colonial gender system, which is hierarchical & totalitarian based on assimilation that outcasts any ambiguity & deviation– it is no surprise that sex incongruous children will be impaired in numerous social aspects, and that their socialization will be very much affected by this rigid gender categorization which leaves them feeling alienated.

under a system without gender, there would likely be less connections between sex incongruency & gender nonconformity; as there would be no such thing as gender to conform or not to conform to in the first place– and i do believe that the currently existing connections between the two are real, however not biologically ingrained, fixated, or determined in any way– but are rather socially shaped, similarly to how social dysphoria is. just because a phenomenon exists, does not necessarily mean that it is inherently biologically predisposed in any individual. there is evidence that dysphoric children are in fact alienated from their peers & that they have face bigger struggle conforming to their specific assigned gender role, however that is not because their brain somehow misaligns with their sex [which would be neurosexism], nor are they at fault for being socially impaired to a degree; it is the extremely strict, fixated & totalitarian system of gender that unfairly & unjustly punishes those who deviate in any way. we cannot say that the phenomenon itself isn’t real, much like how we cannot say that gender is not– both are real, but they have no scientific basis, nor are they biologically determined. gender is forced on us, and the connection between gender nonconformity & dysphoria is formed due to the existence of gender itself– which must be abolished.

– mod zoroark

[our-queer-experience]

This is kind of an add on to the otherkin ask thing, so if you don’t want to post it cause it doesn’t fit the theme of the blog that’s cool. Also, I’m not the same anon as previously

From what I understand about otherkin and therians, the majority of people taking those terms/labels view it as a spiritual thing. Kind of like ‘I fully understand that I’m a human, however I feel a deep connection with this animal’ or ‘I was born as this animal in a past life’. Stuff like that. And I think that’s fine, that’s cool. I’m not going to try to interfere with other people’s beliefs, especially since I’m not familiar with any kind of spirituality so I’m really not knowledgable to comment on it

However, I do have a lot of problems with the concept of transpeciesism and ‘species dysphoria’. As a trans person, I find these labels to be pretty offensive. People who call themselves transspecies, from what I’ve seen, view this as along the same lines of being transgender, and genuinely believe that they need to be in an animal’s body/have animal’s characteristics. To me at least, this is really fucking offensive to the trans community. There is no possible way to be an animal but in a human’s body or whatever. You can’t be born with an animal’s brain, animals aren’t a social construct, there’s literally no way. To me, this is on the same level as being transage, transabled, or any other idiotic transid identity

People who identify this way need to get therapy. The only types of people I’ve seen aching like this is a thing are kids, trolls, and incredibly mentally ill people who are separating themselves from humanity and latching into animals as a coping mechanism for their trauma (this isn’t even me stereotyping or whatever. When I went out looking for information on this, the only people who I saw talking about why they identified this way were saying that they’d had intense trauma that left them disconnected and dissociated from their own humanity). People should not be making identities out of this! People should not be talking about transitioning to another species wtf! And I know that this is just a small portion of the internet, but it’s still there, and it’s still harmful against the trans community and to the people who participate in it, and it’s a fucking problem

ok so. i was with you until “these people are all mentally ill and need to be FIXED!!!” if people are otherkin bc trauma, first identify: does the otherkin identity help them cope and feel better. because usually yeah it does. it hurts no one. fuck off.

being otherkin isn’t comparable to being transgender. duh. our gender is an innate sense of self that everyone has or doesn’t, not changeable, not caused by trauma, often correlated with transexual acts and gender dysphoria though not always. and transracial refers to cultural things- being born one nationality and raised another, not “transitioning race”. if we mean “im a white person is a black body” i’ve never seen someone say that except for to be racist and to mock trans people. never in good faith. so i don’t think that’s giving us a bad name either. “transage” i’ve never seen someone claim this identity in good faith either, so i could not give two shits about that. irrelivant.

and the whole “it’s harmful to the trans comunity” NO IT’S NOT. you could be the most cis-passing, heterosexual, transexual and transgender person and people WILL STILL HATE US.

say it with me. michael knowles did not call for the “complete eradication” of “transgenderism” because otherkin are giving us a bad name, he says it because he hates trans people and wants his five minutes of fame.

ultimetly, if the otherkin identity is not directly harming the individual(typically it isn’t) then i don’t know why you care.

canada is accepting trans people as refugees. i keep seeing headlines about trans kids killing themself. they’re calling for our complete eradication. they’re calling us paraphiliac sexual predators or poor confused children who need saving. people on the internet will actively say they wish you were dead and threaten to dox you. dylan mulveney is getting bomb threats over a bud light commercial. donald trump said he’d ban all transition with no exception if he got elected. russia is doing that right now.

the world has gone to shit and i guarentee you it’s not because some people on the internet decided spiritually, they felt more animal than human(as if we’re pretending there’s a difference between us and an animal besides biologies, we’re not special.)

i get it. it’s hard to confront how litteral nazis are protesting pride parades and people are getting assaulted and the world is shit. but don’t misplace that anger on literal strangers who understand reality a bit different from you.

[i-dont-pay-taxes]

Sky should be high from guilty gear is actually about being trans and I didn't completely make that up!

Lyrics we'll be referring to throughout this analysis:

//it should be noted this song is not actually about being trans, but i find this reading of it interesting, everything I say is completely my own interpretation so take that as you want

"I just tried to take the PATH

that led me to be FREE and ended in this bind

The PAST is what it's called

FILTH is what it is.

That's the wall of the CELL"

The beginning of this song is the closest to having outright trans themes, with it talking about taking the path to be free, which could be seen as the process of transitioning. What I find more interesting is how it talks about being binded by the past, referring to it as filth. There is a clear disgust towards it, comparing it to a part of a cell trapping the person going through this.

A common feeling after transitioning is a certain disliking of our past, and thinking we are trapped by what we were. This idea that we are somehow not being true to the person we were before can develop, leading to us feeling trapped by our own identity.

The song sets up our main issue within this first section, that being the hardships of transitioning.

"Fades away

Fades away like footsteps on the shoreline

why? They try to bring me down.

Sky should be high... Backflow"

The song brings up the idea of the past slowly fading away, and while calling the past a filth, it still has a somber tone while talking about it disappearing. The next line, about others trying to bring the person down, without any understandable reason, is quite obvious in it's correlation to the trans experience.

The last sentence is a repeating line throughout the song, and it's the most important idea this song has to offer... a rejection of death. The sky it refers to could be seen as an afterlife, a place we go to so we may rest, and this song states that such a place should be far away from us. We shouldn't give up on life, on our choices, and as such our sky should be high.

The backflow part doesn't have much to be interpreted. If i had to draw some kind of conclusion, I'd say it's the idea of changing gender, changing the flow... (It's a stretch, but so is everything)

"HERE we go again CON-tradiction

Should I stay or should I die

TRIED to pave a path

DUG a huge hole

had no clue that was my GRAVE"

Sometimes, after transitioning, we can feel like we are contradicting our own body, this whole verse of the song is an almost rageful rant about the hardships experienced throughout the process of figuring it all out.

The idea of staying or dying is a dark concept many trans people have to face, having to choose between gender dysphoria or possible social shunning.

The song again mentions the idea of paving a path and this time it results in almost giving up. It should be mentioned that it does something interesting vocally here, with the word DUG being pronounced so that the D sound is emphasised, making it sound like the word DIE before the UG sound and further context is added. This is used to show the descent of the song, going from doubt to almost completely giving up.

The last two lines further reinforce this, with it now representing the transition as a grave which will lead to death, a death of one's own creation.

"Fades away

Hands and feet are bound, Can't even see

why? They try to bring me down.

Sky should be high... Backflow"

This verse is mostly the same as the one before it, with the important distinction of the second line. The past is now almost completely faded, and that can be scary, feeling like we can't change anything about our future or see what we were like can be a scary idea.

"Backflow

Backflow... As dark shades are made by the sun

Backflow... Good booze is just making it just worse

Backflow... The more words, the less I get

This world is built in brimstone"

The constant repeating of the word backflow is meant to be an attempt to forcefully get through this, continuing with the transition despite the contradictions consistently being brought up within the person.

Dark shades made by the sun can be seen as the negative effects of the transition, with the sun representing the transition itself, while the shades are meant to show how this, at its core healthy and good process, has negative effects due to the way trans people are treated.

Addictions can be developed because of these internal (and tbh in huge part societal) issues. The booze is used as an example of a furthering spiral downward, making everything worse.

The idea that the more words are used to express this feeling, the less the very person explaining it understands themselves is also quite powerful.

It ends by stating that the world is built in brimstone, which could be taken as society being unwilling to change and co-exist with the idea of trans people. This is the lowest point of the song, having it feel like the whole world is against the very idea of being trans.

"Can't you see?

The innocent may find the way

Wise men lose track of the single path

No one knows tomorrow"

A change in perspective. The first line suggests this is a different person completely, as with an almost rhetorical tone it asks the question we thought we knew the answer to. This idea that the answer is obvious, but we've been blind to it, is the major theme of this verse.

Firstly, it claims that as long as we stay innocent, as long as we stay good and moral people, we may find the way.

Secondly, it says that even the wisest of us can lose track of said path, and that there is no shame in that.

Third, it presents the idea that no one knows tomorrow, that no one is certain what the future may bring.

These words contrast the verse before, claiming that no matter the hardships we face, this world isn't built in brimstone, it can change, we can find our own path, and we may get lost along the way, but even the best get lost occasionally.

"I'll never ever kneel down"

This might be my favorite sentence in a song ever, a complete rejection of giving up, refusing to not live because of hardships. Something not innate to the trans experience, but one of the things that defy it. The song has presented the hardships, and the answers, but this, this is the conclusion.

"Stairway

Jaded town of god... what the hell

Stay away... not going there

Sky should be high"

The town of god is another synonym for the afterlife, with the song, now with certainty, proclaiming it wishes to stay away. Rejecting death, giving up and this fake peace, it repeats the idea of how the sky should be high.

"Oh Fades away

Fades away like footsteps on the shoreline

(Yeah) Fades away just one moment left

Sky should be high Backflow"

The past is fading away for the final time, but this time, due to the certainty gained, the song doesn't have a regretful and somber sound. As the last moment finishes, we repeat the ideas we mentioned, and the ending lyric of backflow signifies the completion of the transition, finally accepting ourselves and finding our path. The sky should indeed be high.

//again, overdramatic trans reading of a song for a fighting game, do not take too seriously

[dailyanarchistposts]

What’s the deal with feminism and anarchy?

What’s the correlation between the two? I’ve heard some a-feminists say all anarchists are (or should be) feminists. Is patriarchy really that prevalent or that big of a problem? Feminism just seems like a whiny way of saying women need to be treated equally, yet differently and even better than men.

dot

First—this question seems to be trolling, both in its language and in its content. But since this topic hasn’t been fleshed out here much, I will continue on the premise of good faith. This answer is not going to be a tome, so it doesn’t go into sufficient detail about the complexities around gender vs sex, etc...

Patriarchy is in fact that big of a problem. Women (and women-identified people, which includes tons of people, including entirely straight men in certain contexts) are still attacked as women, paid significantly less then men for the same type of work, devalued in many levels of society (politics, etc), ignored, trivialized, etc. That is just on the bare surface level. If you consider patriarchy to be the thing that keeps us locked in a gender binary, which many feminists (and anarchists) do, then the fact that most of us don’t get to have the kinds of relationships that we want, or be the people we want to be, regardless of our gender/sex, is based on patriarchy.

There are at least as many kinds of feminists as there are of anarchists (probably more).

Since on one level feminists are saying that the standard way of doing things is a problem because of inherited and recreated hierarchies that don’t allow people our full expression, then yes, feminism and anarchy can be seen as intimately related. On the other hand, some feminists just want more women in government, so those feminists have nothing in common with anarchists.

Calling feminists whiny makes me want to hit you in the face.

While identity politics (the idea that a particular identity is a fundamental issue that is worth organizing around—and can be organized around) has a lot of problems and weaknesses, it is one of the easiest ways to (start to) look at many of the inequities of the system we live in. Many people get to that stage and make a home there, replicating power trips that mirror (as in reverse-image) the dynamics in the larger society. Those people are particularly prone to contradictions in what they are asking for (treat me the same and treat me differently). But sometimes what appears to be a contradiction is actually someone taking into account the different contexts of women and men. For example, what self defense looks like for women vs what it looks like for men can be significantly different, since women and men are mostly socialized with diametrically opposed understandings of physical violence.

fnk

“if you consider patriarchy to be the thing that keeps us locked in gender binary...”

I see most feminist responses to patriarchy as absolutely perpetuating the “gender” binary, just as patriarchy does. Some might see that as inherently wrapped up in the bogeyman of feminism patriarchy, where everything that “results” from patriarchy is somehow explainable (or even justifiable) as such. I see that perspective as a far-too-easy avoidance of the complexities of power dynamics in every relationship.

This raises a few related questions in my head. Are patriarchy and feminism, by definition, manifestations of binary thinking?

Is feminism merely a response to patriarchy? Or is it a separately existing concept/ideology, that would/could exist even without patriarchy? One that is not really about gender, or race, or class, ... Or perhaps is the same concept/ideology?

One final thought on the original question. Patriarchy is, at some level, an institution (at least it is seen that way by many). Any anarchist I care to hang with is against all institutions (which are inherently controlling and homogenizing). A feminist who is against patriarchy but not against other institutions (work/capitalism, government; these seem to be the contexts within which patriarchal behavior is measured, at least on the broad scale), is really no different from the communist who is against one institution (capitalism) but not the rest (including, but not limited to, the state, industrialism, etc). Just my 2c.

dot

“I see most feminist responses to patriarchy as absolutely perpetuating the “gender” binary”

Sure. and most anarchists maintain fucked up patterns of behavior that contradict what anarchy is too. Not trying to make an exact correlation or anything, and I hang with anarchists not feminists for exactly the reasons that you mention, but it is true that very few people push the things that they believe in, in the directions that seem appropriate (and/or obvious) to me.

[quirkthieves]

well its over for you hoes because lys said i should post it so

forgive the organizational mayhem here

so basically id like to compare and contrast the utilization of gendered traits and the resulting way in which characters are perceived both ic and ooc between geten and trumpet. basically. because ive already written an embarrassing amount about the weird pair-esque foiling of the characters and what they represent

like, the interactions between masculinity and femininity in getens design arent intentionally meant to be indicative of permeability between the two (as in, by him). getens "femininity" comes entirely from physical traits he has no control over, but they visually register as strongly enough to forcefully shift the understanding of who he is as a person ic and as a character ooc. its jarring and further serves to indicate his strangeness and existence outside of the social order and specific alignment to the himura clan, who are, as he explains, closed off and insular. * thats a special tool to help us later

conversely, we read trumpet as effeminate, but we dont do so because we see indicators of Active Femininity so much as we compare his perceived masculinity to the characters around him and find his genteel demeanor and specific physical traits to be "lacking" . and im not gonna sit here and say we're in the wrong or inherently bigoted for using these gendered assumptions because its very intentional on both the part of the author and character to insinuate these things in this way.

and on kokus part, you see a phenomenon thats really not all that uncommon: the taking on of specific performances of perceived femininity in order to appear less imposing. soft pinks and purples, hearts for the logo, the lower lashes, intentional passivity… he needs people to trust him as an ideological leader, and while going for a hardline masculine type of charisma COULD work, this one brings an element of class alongside it. he poses no threat to other men, and hes given more leeway by women because hes able to act within the code of mannerisms womens spaces ask for, and it adds an element of novelty that makes him stand out. the cismasculine fascination with femininity abhors it but at the same time cannot help but admire the integration of femininity into masculinity especially from the higher class. like geten, it moves trumpet into a very specific social sphere, but one of privilege. and this privilege isnt BECAUSE he performs femininity-- its because koku also performs masculinity in a way that reassures the public that femininity is not a core tenant of his identity, its not part of his ideology-- he is the rational, logical Man, he is the respectable man, he wears well cut suits and keeps his hair appropriately styled, he sports facial hair, he never acts in a way that is not masculine, just not aggressively so. the femininity is some flavoring. an artistic garnish.

and whats interesting is we get a chicken and the egg situation here where its like, do we assume kokus behavior is effeminate because of how he looks or do we presume hes effeminate because of how he acts? koku is frequently put in a more "womanly" role compared to redestro, and we use more feminine terms to refer to him-- but at the same time, we do so in a way that correlates it with physical weakness, more concern over decorum, nagging, etc. his appearance has become associated with "womanly" behaviors, even though koku doesnt really have a feminine identity. or, is it that we read more femininity out of his design than is actually there, simply because he acts in a way that we automatically associate with a lack of masculinity, especially in comparison to his peers. its almost the opposite of the geten issue, where our notions around his behavior influence how we view his appearance instead of his appearance influencing our notions about his behavior

and if you want to approach it from an ic perspective its like, okay, well, does koku utilize femininity because he knows his behaviors will be read that way? does he behave the way he does because he knows itll indicate a lack of hyperaggressive masculinity? at what point does it cease to be a very careful balancing act of Intended Messages and where does it become an aspect of a deep rooted personal identity? and like i mentioned before with trumpet being able to exercise acts of perceived femininity as a part of an expression of class you see this the same way with the himuras, except it isnt an act so much as we are meant to implicitly understand that the reason the himura men can be so waifish and beautiful is because of their class and wealth, because they have not had to be laborers and have become so separate from the rest of the world theyve essentially created the "himura look" based on that specific lifestyle and a desire to be seen as upper class, an intentional cultivation of genetics and mannerisms that in and of itself serves to indicate aristocracy and inherent superiority, as opposed to something like the individual act of wearing certain things or styling your hair a certain way. Their obsession with blood purity speaks for itself.

the association of beauty with morality is millennia old there is a societal directive that assumes a direct connection. the wealthy, intellectuals, politicians, artists, etc all have a vested interest in maintaining that kind of reputation because of the nature of their work. Koku needs that-- Geten does not, hence Geten's typical gear.

geten with his hood up and in a large coat obscures most immediate visually gendered traits, and he tends to be a lot more quiet with his colleagues than he is once his coat is gone. while compress does call him "iceman", likely using his voice as a point of reference, we all remember the geten gender controversy. the presentation itself is ambiguous because geten himself is meant to exist outside of the social sphere, specializing in covert missions and a powerful combatant. hes removing his personally identifiable traits in order to impress upon those he interacts with a sense of unfamiliarity and inhumanity and to intimidate them (which i think is further demonstrated by the fact the dude is moving like a critter he pounces on dabi, hunched over, face obscured). Geten's not performing masculinity here so much as he is "not performing femininity", combined with a level of aggression and ideology that we read as masculine because of social gender roles.

Not only that, but the removal of those personally identifiable traits, so closely associated with his family, continues the theme of his name, "apocrypha", texts of unknown origin. he has obfuscated any sign of where he came from and what lineage he carries.

geten removes his hood during the skirmish with the heroes because it is no longer advantageous to have that kind of presentation and instead he needs to take on a more active, aggressive, leading role that gives his troops a Person to look up to and gives his enemies a clear view of his body language and posturing

his more naturally androgynous appearance isnt really presentation because he has no real choice in it like hes not choosing to look that way. but he does read as feminine to others, enough so that we had years of people still fucking debating whether or not a guy could have those eyelashes. it is almost a necessity to remove those traits in order to cultivate the imposing air that a villain like geten is supposed to have

conversely, we only ever see geten without the coat when hes in detainment and explaining his connections to the himuras, and his appearance is very much intended to make him look a lot more like rei to emphasize that connection. his behavior is ALSO very different, expressing much more sentimental ideas and smiling as he speaks to mr compress and asks what kind of gossip he has to tide them over till the war is done. His behavior is drastically different than his usual aloofness or battle-hungry behavior: he almost sounds GENTLE, reminiscing about how he wonders if people's hearts will change. Geten isn't serving as a villain there, and so the viewer is encouraged to see him at his most "human": but more than that, geten's soft features, intentionally resembling a character the viewers have been called to sympathize with from the start, push it to an almost cartoonish extent that tempers out what we've seen of his behavior prior and prevents the viewer from feeling like its dissonant with his character.

[talisidekick]

Lmao you got "misgendered" at the doctor because medical science has to acknowledge biological gender. Men and women are fundamentally different and need to be treated different. Indulging your delusion does not aide anything.

Do you enjoy using big words in stupid ways to try and sound smart, or did you think your disproven pseudo-scientific jargon would work on the autistic trans woman with a science hyperfixation if you whipped out a thesaurus and Dr. Frankenstien-ed together words to try and make "new" fake terms? I swear, half of these "asks" aren't even actual bigots; I'm beginning to think my followers just love seeing me eviscerate the shit comments their homophobic and transphobic aunt or uncle said at dinner because I only seem to get these kinds of asks around the holidays and Pride Month, you know, the few times a year shitty people think it's okay to say horrible and cruel things because you either can't escape them or they're reminded that they need to harrass family with opinions on other peoples lives that don't affect them and no one really gives a shit about. I know I should ignore this but at this point you know I've hit "fuck it", so thank you for the enrichment, and lets get into it:

On the "biological gender" comment; anyone who uses "biological", denoting of the field of scientific study known as biology, and "gender", a term with it's roots in societal constructs and observed in the fields of science such psychology and sociology with a specific and deliberate separation from biology with the exception of behavioural observation with the intent of creating useful correlation but exclusively not attribution or causation, is ignorant, scientifically inept, and not in the fields of medical science or really shouldn't be because conflating sex and gender in a medical field is how accidents happen. So either shut up, or retire and then shut up, and read a modern biology textbook. There's a reason the terms are "male", "female", "hermaphrodite", "intersex", "Male to Female (MtF)", and "Female to Male (FtM)" to name a few to describe sex and sex characteristics of species (note: not people), and "Man", "Woman", "Non-Binary", "Cisgender", "Transgender", and "Agender" to describe people and individuals and their identities. It's baked into our very language and the definitions because science has always understood and observed sex and gender are different concepts. Trying to act like sex terminology and gender terminology are interchangeable has already had seriously detrimental effects within the medical, psychological, and social sciences that have lead to innocent uninvolved parties being harmed.

On the "men and women are fundamentally different and need to be treated different" comment: no, men and women aren't "fundamentally different" and don't "need to be treated differently". People are fundamentally different and deserve to be treated differently based on their needs, wants, and medical and mental wellbeing. For humans, the male and female sexes are sexually dimorphic, and have key differences but both have underlying similarities that make them part of the same species. When we have someone who's a hermaphrodite or intersex, while still being human, there may be key differences in medical care, and that also goes for people on cross sex hormones. All of this builds the unique medical care requirements of an individual which is further compounded by the genetic make-up of an individual as well as how that individuals body functions. Blanket saying people need to be treated differently based solely on binary gender identification is wrong. My body functions different than someone elses, even if we required the same drugs at the same levels. Mine especially functions different because I'm on HRT. Broad statements in medical care provide only an extremely loose description often only for the layman to grasp a bit of what is going on. Medicine and medical care is always specific and taliored to an individual based on medical science and biological factors that are never so cut and dry as falsely associating woman = female and man = male. That may be how its described to a layman patient, but thats because doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals seldom have the time to give an unknowledgeable patient 2-8+ years of knowledge in a crash course, there's other people who are possibly dying that they need to get to.

Lastly, the "indulging your delusion" statement: being transgender and transsexual isn't a delusion, it's a medically accepted fact with literal decades of modern science and thousands of years of history behind it. What's delusional is thinking sex and gender is the same thing and that how medical science works is men get the "man" branded drugs and medical care and women get the "woman" branded drugs and medical care. You're dumb, get smarter, read a modern science book. I reccomend this one:

It's called WPATH Version 8. And remember:

We all start stupid. Being dumb is the default, we become smart by picking up and reading books on subjects we're a moron in, listening to people smarter than us, and asking stupid questions to learn how to ask smarter ones. We don't become smart by making shit up. We become smart by asking "what if I'm wrong" about everything we think we know and looking for the answers.

[luxe-pauvre]

Another word that women and feminists are increasingly throwing out is “patriarchy,” to acknowledge and draw attention to the fact that in our society as it currently stands, power is stacked in favour of men and against women. This word also riles up some men, often when they individually don’t feel that they have much power in society. But the point is that far more men than women do hold power, and the structures of society favour men, so this skewing of the scales is deeply embedded. Some men may particularly feel that they have not benefited from the so-called patriarchy — for example, gay men and poor men. One black male professor has told me that he thinks all women, including black women, are better off than black men in terms of the support they receive in life and the outcomes they experience. For these reasons I try to qualify references to “patriarchy” by calling it the “straight white patriarchy” or the “straight white rich patriarchy” or the “straight white rich cis-patriarchy,” but this leads me to wonder how many more adjectives we will have to attach to this situation. I do believe that it is important for us to take all these identities into account when considering the fairness of the world, even though some people, usually straight white men, roll their eyes at “identity politics.” But importantly I think we also need a way to think about relevant characteristics of people separately from the whole identity discussion. We need to stop blurring the issues. When someone’s identity is relevant because of prejudiced attitudes of people around them or inequality embedded in society, then that is a genuine problem, but when we’re thinking about characteristics or abilities, those things do not need to have anything to do with gender or other identities. Whether or not they correlate with gender is not relevant, because correlation is not causation and does not completely determine what will be true about someone.

Eugenia Cheng, x + y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender

[beakers-and-telescopes]

The Science of Sexuality

Happy Pride!!!

We all know that being gay is not a choice... but then what is it? Is sexuality an innate quality that we are born with, something that develops over time as we grow, or something else entirely? Unsurprisingly, it is a question with a complex and not well understood answer. But there are many factors that have been shown to come into play.

Genetics

The idea that the key to sexuality could be in our genes is an idea that garners some mixed feelings- on one side it could help to further "legitimize" the queer community, but there are also people who hope that finding "the gay gene" can be used to prevent homosexual births entirely. Fortunately, it doesn't seem like that will ever be the case.

In general, you can determine if a trait is influenced by genetics by studying twins. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, while fraternal twins only share as much DNA as any other set of siblings. If the trait appears more often in identical twins than fraternal twins than the rest of the population, that suggests a genetic influence.

There have been multiple so called "twin studies" conducted on sexuality. Though the percentage varies strongly between studies, there is enough evidence to firmly conclude that two identical twins are more likely to both be gay than two unrelated people. This suggests that there is definitely a genetic component to being queer (though it is by no means the only factor). Several studies throughout the years have analyzed the human genome of heterosexual and homosexual people to try and pick up any trends. Again, there is no one "gay gene", but studies have found certain genetic markers that are more likely to show up if a person is gay.

Fetal Development

So if sexuality is only partly influenced by genetics, where does the rest come from? One hypothesis is that the hormones and environment that we are exposed to in the womb impacts our sexuality. The gist of this idea is that if the "wild type" (WT, most common) version of the male brain is attracted to females, and the WT version of the female brain is attracted to males, than hormonal or environmental changes that make certain parts of a female brain closer to a male brain (and vice versa) can cause homosexuality.

One theory is that gay men are exposed to abnormally low testosterone levels in the womb, while gay women are exposed to higher levels. Evidence (though contested) to support this theory include the fact that lesbians have, on average, a more masculine finger length ratio (meaning that the ring finger tends to be longer than the index finger) than straight women. Lesbians also tend to have a slightly larger right hemisphere of the brain, which is normally associated with men. In turn, gay men tend to have equally sized brain hemispheres.

Maternal Immune Response

One very interesting factor in developing sexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. A 1997 study found that with each older brother he has, a man's chances of being gay go up as much as 33%. This correlation has been verified, and is now one of the most reliable biological variables when assessing sexuality. The reason behind this may have to do with a mother's immune system.

When pregnant with a boy, male cells enter the mother's bloodstream. Since they are foreign to her immune system, the mother produces antibodies that neutralize a protein in these cells called NLGN4Y Y. Mothers who produce higher numbers of these antibodies are more likely to have a gay son, and since the number of antibodies increases the more times she is pregnant with a boy, this leads to the birth order effect. It is suggested that the reason this leads to homosexuality is that the NLGN4Y Y protein is related to some aspects of brain masculinization.

Socialization Theories

So being gay is at least partly due to genetics and the pre-natal environment, but what about once you're born? Queer people have very high rates of displaying gender non conforming behavior in childhood, so will pushing gender non conforming behavior on a child increase their chances of turning out gay?

Unsurprisingly, the answer to this is a decisive no.

TW Child abuse

From the 1960s all the way up until 2000 (yikes!!!!!) there have been cases where male infants were surgically reassigned into girls after being born with malformed penises, or after accidents such as botched circumcisions. These children were then raised as girls, often with no idea throughout their childhoods that they were born male. Cases have been published regarding these occurrences, and the 7 instances where sexual orientation was reported showed that all of the children grew up to be attracted solely or primarily to women, despite the fact that they were raised as girls.

END TW

These cases dealt with male homosexuality and they are limited in numbers, but they still suggest that the influence of post natal socialization on sexuality is minimal.

[stevensaus]

When The Protest Sign Reveals A Lot More Than Intended

The news coverage of the protests outside a local (to me) YMCA yesterday missed the most important sign the TERFs (trans-exclusive radical feminists) were holding. The one that really revealed how they felt.Quick side note: While I am aware that "TERF" might not be the most accurate term -- I really doubt most of those folks were feminists in any meaningful way -- they were attempting to employ feminist language, so I'm going to run with that label for the moment.The background: The City of Xenia -- not the YMCA, to be clear -- decided to prosecute a transgender woman for utilizing the female changing room. To recap the Dayton Daily News coverage, a Fairborn, Ohio woman "was charged in Xenia Municipal Court with three counts of public indecency, for incidents in September, November, and a third incident between November 2021 and 2022." Xenia council president Will Urschel, in a video posted to YouTube in January 2023, "told a meeting of the Greene County Tea Party that if the city is able to successfully prosecute the person involved, they may bring legal action against the YMCA for aiding and abetting the alleged crime." The YMCA, in response, "has said that state non-discrimination laws require it to allow transgender individuals to use locker rooms, changing rooms and bathrooms that align with their gender identity." The organization also says "posted locker room guidelines ask patrons to 'remain properly covered while in public areas of the locker room.'" The court date has been pushed back due to publicity.Yesterday, 25 Feb 2023, three to five times as many pro-trans protesters showed up to show support for human rights (across the street in this photo), while a dozen or so TERFs protested against the policy, something you can pretty clearly see in some of the video from the news coverage. For quite some time, there were only four folks protesting against the YMCA - the guy with his cross-on-wheels, one man who kept letting the American flag he was holding hit the ground, one guy who seemed to think he was "owning" people by taking their pictures, and a single woman holding their anti-trans signs. That 3:1 ratio seemed to hold true for the anti-trans protesters, while it was easily the reverse for those protesting for human rights. There's a lot I could talk about and unpack there, but specifically, I want to focus on one sign that the anti-trans woman held. The read, "The YMCA cannot give consent for all women." (The sign is just barely visible below the flag in the photo linked here.)The assumptions embedded in that one sentence really reveal a lot. - Using "consent" here inherently brings in an implication of prurient (or sexual) interest to a non-sexual action. This was reinforced by the "keep our women safe" sign another TERF was holding. - It absolutely ignores the actual data about who commits sexual assault. - It ignores the YMCA's own policy of being "properly covered while in public areas of the locker room." - It ignores that gender expression is not -- and does not necessarily correlate to -- sexual orientation. The folks I know were all confused by the sign. Because to us, changing in the locker room or using the restroom is an individual act. The idea of "consent" is utterly misused here, and makes no sense whatsoever. I have never asked "consent" before going in the public restroom at, say, a truck stop, and I've never seen or heard of someone doing so. Even if you were thinking about knocking on the door before using an individual restroom or stall... well, your gender doesn't matter, you don't use the same stall (or individual restroom, or individual changing room) as someone else when they're using it. Problem solved.The anti-trans panic does not actually keep anyone safer. If anything, it distracts us from the actual perpetrators of sexual assault. Transgender people are overwhelmingly survivors of sexual assault. On the other hand, it is shockingly easy to find recent cases involving a church leader in Florida, a youth pastor in Mississippi, a youth pastor in Massachusetts, a pastor in North Carolina, a youth pastor in Arkansas, and a youth pastor in Virginia, and, of course, the Southern Baptist Convention's own released list of "about 380 Southern Baptist church leaders and volunteers have faced credible accusations of sexual misconduct. Of those, roughly 220 were convicted of sex crimes or received plea deals."If actual "indecent exposure" happens, then it is actually a violation of the YMCA's rules already, and has nothing to do with a person's gender expression. Problem solved.The last point is the most telling to me, though... because these TERFs have already signaled that this is just part of their campaign against LGBTQIA+ people as a whole. The concept of people whose sexual orientation -- including asexuality! -- is not the same as their own simply did not occur to them. They were utterly unable to think beyond their own motivations and experiences.And if you put all that together, that brings us back to something I said at the beginning of the month. Their actions, their signs, make no sense when measured against observable data. At first glance, it seems nonsensical, even hypocritical.Then you look at who is assaulting women, is stripping away rights, is denying the existence of others for their identities.And then you realize.It is not hypocrisy.It is projection. Featured Photo by Lena Balk on Unsplash Read the full article

[cinnamaya]

An Examination of Transmedicalism in Impossible_PHD's Writing

I recently came across this article which is, unfortunately, another misguided essay attempting to be optimistic while heavily relying on transmedicalist claims as its basis. Here is the article in question. Let's look at the claims.

In the article, the author claims that being trans is determined by genetics, along with a vast overstatement of the confidence that there is a genetic component. Aside from being epistemically unsound, this claim is politically dangerous. But is it even supported by the studies?

The answer is no. In fact, the study twin linked in the article found that none(!) of the sampled same sex twins (not even monozygotic twins) were both diagnosed with GID. Even considering twin studies on trans twins are a microscopic sample, its unlikely that we would see no coincidence like this. The other studies are either just as inconclusive or don't study trans people at all, using criteria such as gender nonconformity or parent reports.

So if the science can barely make a correlation between genetic factors and actually being trans, surely that would dissuade any direct claims of biological or genetic causation right? Nope. The author doubles down on the claims.

This is followed by a paragraph warning that we cannot conclusively trace the biological cause of trans people (yet) but insisting that it does in fact exist. Fortunately the author has abandoned her previous faith in trans brain differences. Unfortunately, this this has done nothing to shake her faith that there is a biological cause of transness. She suggests a few alternatives such as gut bacteria and even hinting that it might have a shared cause or be the result of neurodivergence(!!).

Despite acknowledging that the cause is unimportant, the author veers into dangerous biological determinist territory, concluding that "We don’t really need to know for our purposes—knowing that there’s a biological basis is more than enough." Why is that enough? Enough for what? These questions go unanswered, but the implication is clear. The author clearly believes that biological origins lend transness some objective validity—a core tenet of transmedicalism.

The root of these beliefs rest on the assumptions that sex is not a constructed category, that today's concepts of sex and gender are eternal and natural, and not a product of our society. Transmedicalism cannot grasp other forms of transness besides the modern clinical definition. Human diversity alone is enough evidence that there would probably be more trans people if society would be more accepting. Confined to her narrow biological views, however, the author has to resort to an incredibly ridiculous mathematical "proof" to make her point. The final section of the article reflects a comical misunderstanding of demography, through which the author moves from the number of historical AIDS deaths, prevalence of AIDS in trans communities, and suicide rates to estimate a number of trans people alive today.

Although this part of the essay is laughably unscientific, it also reflects an absurd consequence of the author's transmedicalist views. According to the author, there are currently millions of people who are trans but do not know it. Is it a victory to claim that people's claimed identities are only an illusion, and who they really are lies hidden deeper in their genes? I would argue it is not. It's the same logic that has been used for decades to deny trans people medical care.

Even if the author doesn't support gatekeeping, her very attempt to base trans legitimacy off of biological determinism is a political danger which must be avoided.

[butchpeace]

I’m not fearmongering, and I have read the research. The fact that twins are more likely to both transition does not automatically prove a genetic cause. You also have to rule out other possible explanations. Did the study we’re referencing rule out all other explanations? No.

This is the study you’re basing your conclusion on.

Some key points:

Only 17 male and 16 female sets of twins were included in the study. This is a small sample size.

The study designers are basing their conclusion that transsexuality is genetic on the fact that the twins self-reported different answers to questions related to the way they subjectively felt they were treated by their parents as children.

Let’s assume those self-reports are completely objective and paint an accurate picture of each person’s childhood. The study designers have still made an assumption that the way a child is raised within their home is the only possible environmental influence that could lead to transition. So they conclude that if the kids were raised differently, that means it’s genetic. Logically that doesn’t follow, because it ignores the fact that there are other possible causes.

Nowhere in the study did they look at the potential influence of sexual orientation, stigma related to gender non-conformity, possible fetishes or porn consumption, or other social factors such as friend groups, similar experiences outside the family, or experiences in adulthood that could lead to trans identification.

We also know from more serious, better done studies that homosexuality is strongly correlated with identical twins. The concordance rate is much higher in that study compared to the trans twin one.

Homosexuality could be the actual cause of HSTS transsexuality being more common in twins. We have no proof that transsexuality is a biological phenomenon separate from homosexuality. Until we have that evidence, even the best designed study on trans twins would only be providing further evidence for the biological basis of homosexuality.

Long story short, there are more possibilities than “This is genetic” that need to be taken into consideration before anyone can draw conclusions about where trans identity comes from.

This is why we can’t just take a study with a conclusion we like and say it proves our point. We have to actually look at the study, understand what it’s saying, understand the background of research it’s part of, and decide whether or not it was well designed and came to logical conclusions. Then form our opinions about the topic.

sometimes trans reddit is good

[calledbyflowers]

shit i should write an essay called "i can wag my tail." cuz i can. im a dog and i can wag my tail. this is realized contextually. i am a dog that is an aspect of what i am that colors and contextualizes everything else i am and it is not a purely virtual aspect a phantom of life but is realized practically and evolved and is genuinely a way that i am instead of merely a way that i imagine i am

like i think if u can take kinda the kernel of radical feminism. which id say is the understanding that patriarchy does not interact with a pre-given sex but that sex itself is produced through various everyday acts and everyday styles of action and the power dynamics thereof. it is part of the way we live and derivatively how we speak. but the power dynamics and imbalances therein is constitutive of patriarchy, patriarchy is an inequality of life. so that sex appears side by side with patriarchy and the two intermingle, not identical but inseparable from each other

this at least in the case of sex as currently constituted. one must think seriously about transhumanism as a kind of transitioning humanism

this need not be a departure from humanity entirely a cradles graces (tho i think thatd b more cestial mechsnics? im a dumb mf dog). for exapmpl, i still consider myself a humanoid though not quite a person, as human-like and as in community and intimate with humanity. it is my blood

and so like thinking about how the evolution of the economic organization of humanity and the slaying of devils death to rich men and tyrants Christ with blade be upon ye!!!! and umm like how this creates potentialities for remaking what sex means which is to say in semantic terms another way of describing the correlative and explanetorily primary the remaking of how sex is lived and what we do as sexed beings, how we labour, etc. or loke that is to say changing what it means to br q human. a capitalost anf a communist soxiety disagree about what it is to be human and what the good life for humans is they r opposing ways of life.

and so like unmm so like sex is produced thru scts (hehe sex acts lmao) and like so forcefemming might actually make u a girl at least contextually on that scenerio u r being a girl just doing an identifiable characteristic of girl and maybe reinforce it and let it spread and like consciousness rewrites itself to meet its own needs and maybe i am suggesting that sissy hypno can make u trans and like thats to say it can be the materialization of a potentiality that i umm descriptive psychology eidetic inquiry retreating up my tower that like yknow sissy hypno can only make u trans if u were already potentially trans in a loaded sense that allows itself to shift thru reinterpretion.

which is to say the (rhyming with peirce but not saying thr same thng as him) the future changing the context of the past changing not what happrmedbut what it meant the overall more or less coherent narrative of a community (whoever shares in the transition journey and like gets to see all the different genders like my parents have seen 3 or arguably 4 outta me?

cuz like since baby me definitely felt nonbinary at the timr but in a way that's i can recomtectialize as always having veen a girl so i make more sense and am simpler and like sinplifying myself so that i may have greaterastery oher myselh eraltming weakening myself so i may strugglr with myself and best myself more easily by making myself more predictable subjecting myself to routine so i may tune my needs to a schedule and ensure i will be able to meet then planning aheas aboit wjat i might like in th future

by subjectkng myself to law i render myself more intelligible to myself so i do not get hungry and then be very scared since then i might feel very afraid when i am hungry like "oh no! i need the food right now!"

and thats dilly but i got a got a lotta complex needd as an organism interacting with and forming a part of a very conceptually dense sociel environment our society is so big and complicated! and that makes it possible for our needs to be so multivariant branching out like hedgehog spikes as the way we live becomes more like fucked cuz like i do genuinely think history has been speeding up or maybe im just very fucking high right now and a kind of ant-whig wanna be devo nihilists riding down into the depths...

is that what i believe? i do genuinely maintain a sorta kinda distance from what i write especially whule high off my tits and maybe its a kind of performance arts? or maybe its jusy demonstrating the forme of arguments a kimd of exercise in the structure of phenomenological arguments but ultimately its all stiff that yknow eidetic variation isnt exactly scientific in the end or yknow umm doggy....

im a doggy.....

i wag ny tail ..

.wood wikfeoof wikf eoof diggy

doggy

[sapenvs3000f23]

Unit 03: The Privilege in Nature Interpretation 🐛

What role does “privilege” play in nature interpretation? Please include your working definition of privilege.

Hi fellow interpreters! I hope everyone is having a lovely start to October and enjoying the ebbs and flows that come along with changing seasons :) 

In highschool, I was introduced to the term “intersectional environmentalism”, an inclusive approach to environmentalism that advocates for the protection of both people and the planet. The term opened my eyes to a framework that deeply interwove social and environmental justice through amplifying historically excluded voices and approaching environmental education, policy, and activism with equity, inclusion, and restorative justice in mind. Without recognizing this connection, we design exclusive and harmful systems— systems where privilege is not recognized. 

My working definition of privilege has evolved significantly with age through first-hand experiences, active listening of stories told through diverse perspectives, and extensive inner reflection. As a young teen, I found myself becoming highly resentful of a system that was also directly benefiting me, an awareness that drove me in unproductive circles. However, my definition of privilege currently resides in direct correlation with intersectionality, a term with roots in Black feminist activism (originally coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw). Intersectionality describes how our overlapping social identities relate to social structures of racism and oppression by merging many identity markers (race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religion, disability, etc.). Together, these characteristics build every individual’s complex identity, but how does privilege come into play? There is a significant power imbalance created through norms and systems that leads to the unjust treatment or control of people (oppression), while providing direct advantage for others (privilege). Intersectionality shows that oppression and privilege cannot be reduced to only one part of an identity, but are dependent on and shaped by all aspects. These concepts link back to the established idea of “intersectional environmentalism”, an approach to nature interpretation where the role of privilege is highly considered. 

Our Interpreting Cultural and Natural Heritage for a Better World textbook highlights some of the key roles privilege plays in nature interpretation, including economic, cultural, and communication barriers, lack of knowledge, and fear. The topics delve into the privilege associated with transportation to natural environments, costs when accessing interpretative sites, higher socioeconomic positions, cultural perceptions of outdoorsy activities, language used in educational material, acquiring knowledge, general safety concerns, fear of wildlife, and discrimination during participation. Clearly, privilege plays a HUGE role! 

In addition to our textbook, when thinking of privilege in nature interpretation, I was reminded of the Mishkos Kenomagwen: The Teachings of Sweetgrass chapter from Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. The entire novel is a beautifully orchestrated gateway into Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. However, this particular chapter highlights the inequity involved in environmental academia. Indigenous knowledge holders carry valuable information about the intricate relationships and interactions between humans, animals, plants, and our environment. Yet, Western science views have far more privilege and “higher value” in environmental academia, making it challenging to incorporate Indigenous teachings into nature education spaces.  

Overall, reading the textbook limiting factors for nature involvement and reflecting on Robin Wall Kimmerer’s sharings encouraged more personal reflection on the privilege I’ve carried throughout my nature interpretation journey.  Nature has provided me with mental sanctuary, emotional fulfillment, spaces for physical activity, employment income, and an academic path— all of which have been rooted in remarkable privilege and accessibility to natural spaces. How lucky am I to have lived next to a conservation area? A conservation area that inspired me to pursue a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences, which was initially funded by money earned by working at that same conservation area! Recognizing privilege is crucial as a nature interpreter, and I hope to continue my journey of nature interpretation through an intersectional lens.

Reference: Kimmerer, R. W. (2015). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions, 156-166.

[eimearkuopio]

This is actually a situation where I'm going to claim precedence: not because I have the subjective lived experience of transness, but because I've spent the last three years specifically teaching students at two of the world's most prestigious universities how to do this specific type of data analysis in the most intersectional way I could find; and I've received only positive feedback on the techniques I employed for this particular topic, even when I specifically asked for constructive criticism and requested feedback privately/discreetly from my queer and trans students.

Cliff notes version, YMMV, but this is a Tumblr post, not a full lecture course. There are four main types of data: nominative, ordinal, interval, and ratio.

Nominative covers any arbitrary set of categories, and does not require a relationship between categories, e.g. types of animal. Ordinal data have a relationship between categories where order actually matters for the data, but you don't know how much of a difference there is between them, e.g. finishing order in a race. Broadly speaking, we use these categories for qualitative analysis.

Interval has a specific, measurable, constant difference between two quantities, but there is no "physical" meaning to the arbitrary location of the zero point. An example is temperature in Celcius or Fahrenheit; there's a zero on the scale, but it is subjective, not objective. You can add or subtract these numbers and still retain meaning, but you can't really say something is "twice as hot" and have it be a physically meaningful statement.

Ratio data have a physical meaning behind their zero point. Examples include temperature in Kelvin, physical length etc. Something can actually be "twice as hot" in Kelvin. These two data types are quantitative; we can do objective analysis on them in a meaningful fashion, as long as we understand the nature of the data we are working with and the limitations and constraints that apply.

Hormone levels are ratio data. They are quantitative. They have zero values. That makes them great for looking at specific cases and understanding specific scenarios.

Gender is definitely some form of qualitative categorical data. But the thing about data science is, it's only useful when you're looking at lots of observations. And crucially, when you're dealing with categories, and certain categories are underrepresented, you can actually fuck up your analysis worse by treating your categories as if they were all equally likely.

What does this mean for diversity and inclusivity? It means that, bizarrely, we might do more harm by insisting that minority identities be included in a default analysis as if they were not minorities than by ignoring them completely while doing your initial data analysis.

This is not erasure. It is accepting that doing mathematical analysis correctly requires that we avoid tokenism!

When we have accepted and overcome this counter-intuitive step, we must then ask ourselves: what does that mean for us? I genuinely hope to spend my career answering that question in multiple walks of life, and relating to many minority identities, but I'm going to limit myself to a few points for right now.

Correlation does not imply causation, but it does show correlation. The majority of people do fit into one of two gender categories. Those categories are strongly correlated with biological sex, which is also a category which is defined based on some combination of other data observations. Both gender and sex are not exclusively binary, but they can each be reasonably approximated as bimodal distributions with a strong interaction term, which will often be the best starting point for robust analysis.

Does this mean we should ignore individuals who do not fit into our binary majority of "gender and sex match for whatever definitions we have chosen for our binary categories" boxes? No, because there is always some degree of subjectivity in any analysis that reduces the complexity of our data. But it's not wrong to construct an initial theoretical framework around a simplified model, and then generalise to a more complicated representation as the need arises. Newton's Theory Of Gravity is what we use in everyday life, even though you need Einstein to cover edge cases like gravitational lensing, because it's a pretty useful simplification when you're dealing with 99.999999% of cases. That doesn't mean we're going to erase Einstein, but it would be equally silly to force everyone to use four-dimensional tensor calculus to understand Thing Fall Towards Planet This Fast.

How do you find your General Theory Of Diversity? Ironically, this is where intersectionality meets high-level mathematics. Morality is a highly local function, and if you try to use a single equation to represent it everywhere, that equation will be very effective when dealing with cases similar to the ones you trained your conceptual model on! Unfortunately, as soon as you move away from a set of observations with a known and unassailably correct binary yes/no good/evil model, even if there is an underlying and objective truth, the way observations and fallibility work mean that the model is likely to get things very wrong. That's why it's such a mistake to declare anything infallibly, because even if you're correct, the moment you start to generalise a conceptual model based on that observation, you're introducing bias when you apply the concept to more complicated scenarios. You can kind of get around this using splines, which are very cool but also almost impossible to explain accurately and completely from first principles.

BUT if you never make any approximations, you actually can't make any predictions. Ever. You can't model ideas without reducing the complexity of the real world into something our limited brains can handle. We do it all the time subconsciously, and it's how we survive. I actually believe neurodivergence is a result of certain human brains being optimised to use non-standard approximations in this innate conceptual modelling, and I have some pretty interesting ideas in terms of what that means when learning to "pass" as neurotypical, but that's a different post.

Ultimately, it's not wrong to refer to testosterone and estrogen as male and female hormones. They're actually causally linked to many of the observations used in the admittedly subjective binary classification according to sex that humans seem to do by default. Acknowledging this is not ipso facto erasure, although I admit it can and often is weaponised against those who do not fit into the majority "binary matches!" categories.

But to properly and meaningfully account for those minority individuals, we need to define exactly how we are constructing our model. It's a painful paradox, that to properly include non-standard individuals in our system (which is of necessity a simplified model of a complex reality), we must define their identities exactly in a way that may feel like the goal is exclusion rather than inclusion. To me, the solution is to consider whether the specific problem we are dealing with actually requires using categories at all; and where it does, to use the most generic model that allows for a meaningful resolution to the problem.

This has some really shitty outcomes sometimes! Suppose a bunch of afab people are really really freaked out by penises, and they desperately want a space free of penises. It's going to suck for trans women to be told they're not welcome; and it's also going to suck for trans men to be told they ARE welcome, because it reduces their complex identities to a body part that they weren't born with. And if we define that space as "women only", when what was actually intended was "the No Dicks Allowed On Account Of Our Trauma club", that's where the actual problem arises. How do we get around it? Not by insisting penises can go anywhere they want, that's for damned sure! But maybe by recognising that the people who created that (admittedly exclusionary!) club have valid trauma; and that some of the people who are being excluded also have valid trauma, and had nothing to do with causing the club members' trauma, and have a right to their own support; and by accepting that "women only" isn't actually a great way of stating "no dicks allowed", leaving the "no dicks allowed" club to have their little meetings, and starting another club where dick or lack thereof is irrelevant and every positive aspect of the "no dicks allowed" club is still present.

"But Eimear!" I hear you say. "We are marginalised! They are the ones excluding us!"

I agree with you.

I also guarantee they are saying the same fucking thing about you.

Here's the thing.

You're both half right.

You ARE marginalised.

THEY are not the ones excluding you.

The system excludes you.

Tear down the system.

One barrier at a time.

One oppression at a time.

Raise the floor. Tear down every glass ceiling, because all they really do is make it look like the people standing on top of them can fucking fly.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.