#and is anti-considering systems of oppression

[butchgtow]

how are you shameless enough to claim to be a radical feminist while believing that in non-sexual contexts, coerced decisions should be treated as freely made choices, particularly in analytics?

"financial coercion? whatever, she made her choice. violent coercion? whatever, it was her choice.

"it was all her choice. the intentional limitations placed by either an individual, a set of individuals, or the system oppressing her have no place in consideration."

you aren't a feminist -- especially not a radical feminist. you refute fundamental feminist philosophy of coercion as nonconsent (with rape as the only exception). you deny materialism.

you're directly encouraging the sex data gap and its intended, ever-successful outcome of women's global economic exploitability with your statements in this very moment.

-

anyway book recommendation because this user is a reactionary contrarian who loudly and proudly refuses to read it: Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez.

[fiercynn]

disturbed by the number of times i've seen the idea that calling gaza an open-air prison is not okay because "that implies that gazans have done something wrong", the subtext being unlike those criminals who deserve to be in prison. i'm sorry but we HAVE to understand criminalization and incarceration as an intrinsic part of settler colonialism and racial capitalism, because settler states make laws that actively are designed to suppress indigenous and racialized resistance, and then enforce those laws in even more racist and discriminatory ways so that who is considered "criminal" is indelibly tied up with who is considered a "threat" to the settler state. that's how law, policing, and incarceration function worlwide, and how they have always functioned in israel as part of the zionist project.

talking about prison abolition in this context is not a distraction from what's happening to palestinians; it's a key tool of israel's apartheid and genocide. why do you think a major hamas demand has been for israel to release the palestinians in israeli prisons? why do you think israel nearly doubled the number of palestinians incarcerated in their prison in just the first two weeks after october 7? why do they systematically racially profile palestinians (particularly afro-palestinians, since anti-blackness is baked into israel's carceral system as well, like it is in much of the world) and arrest and charge 20% of palestinians, an astonishingly high rate that goes up even higher to 40% for palestinian men? why are there two different systems of law for palestinians and israelis, where palestinians are charged and tried under military law, leading to a conviction rate of almost 100%? why do they torture children and incarcerate them for up to 20 years just for throwing rocks? why can palestinians be imprisoned by israel without even being charged or tried? why do they keep the bodies of palestinians who have died in prison (often due to torture, execution, or medical neglect) for the rest of their sentences instead of returning them to their families?

this is not to say that no palestinians imprisoned by israel have ever done harm. but incarceration worldwide has never been about accountability for those who have done harm, nor about real justice for those have experienced harm, nor about deterring future harm. incarceration is about controlling, suppressing, and exterminating oppressed people. sometimes people from privileged classes get caught up in carceral systems as well, but it is a side effect, because the settler colonialist state will happily sacrifice some of its settlers for its larger goal.

so yes, gaza is an open-air prison. that doesn't means gazans deserve to be there. it means that no one deserves to be in prison, because prisons themselves are inherently oppressive.

[nothorses]

You've made a lot of really great posts about transmasc experiences and struggles, and they really resonate with me! So I guess I want to in complete earnest ask: why the push for 'transandrophobia' when anti-transmasculinity as a term has been around for longer and faces little friction by comparison? I don't really *dislike* transandrophobia, but its meaning gets muddied everywhere from different directions, while ATM is pretty direct and succinct I feel. It's very clear that it's about TRANSmasculine oppression. I'm not against having a dedicated term at all, but the content of our struggles gets lost in the weeds of attaching kind of understandably divisive terms like misandry and androphobia in an attempt to mirror a phenomenon very specifically about misogyny; it seems more trouble than it's worth considering ATM is right there

I'll be honest, this ask is confusing to me for a few reasons.

When I started talking about transandrophobia around the summer of 2020, the conversations I was encountering were very much, like, a handful of people across Twitter and Tumblr (literally, a handfull!). I picked up "transandrophobia" because it was one of two words I saw in use, and the other- "transmisandry"- felt much less clear and much more contentious. It seemed super obvious to me that people would draw a line from "men's rights activists" trying to push this idea that "misandry", as a systemic oppression of men by women, to "transmisandry", and assume some ill intent where there was none. It's confusing!

"Transandrophobia" was the better of two options being floated at the time, at least in any conversation I saw. "Anti-transmasculinity" was not really a term I'd been made aware of, if anyone at all was talking about it at the time.

I have seen people pick up "anti-transmasculinity" more recently (maybe in the last year?), and this is definitely the first I've seen someone shorten it to "ATM". The people I've seen use that term have been mostly people who seem really new to the conversation, and the vibe I've gotten has been very, like, "we're the Good Transmascs, our word isn't dirty and gross like those other Bad Transmascs everyone hates. you'll listen to us now that our word is Good and Pure, right?"

Which is like... kind of frustrating, and kind of sad, honestly. I think these people honestly believe that if they just choose the right word, all the people who've been dragging me and every other transmasc talking about these issues through the mud for the last 4 years or so will really just stop & listen. If they can just say it right, these people- who have been relentlessly harassing and spreading lies about every single transmasc who came before them for years now- will care what they have to say, and will be willing to engage with them in earnest, compassionate dialogue.

If you just find the right word, all of these people will care about your hurt, your pain, and the suffering of your community.

It kind of breaks my heart. It's an incredibly hopeful, kind, loving way to view the world. It's compassion and patience and forgiveness that these folks are not being given, but that they so badly want to offer to others.

And at the same time, it sucks to be the Bad Transmasc. It sucks to have fought so hard for so long, and for the people I've been fighting for all this time to turn around and say, "you're gross, and dirty, and evil, and everything you've done is a mistake." It sucks to see the people I've been fighting for agree with the people I've been fighting against, and shove me under the bus in an effort to appeal to the people running me over with it. Knowing that the bus is going to aim for them once it's done with me just makes it sadder, yknow?

@saint-speaks wasn't the first person to ever speak the word "transandrophobia", but he is the one who coined and popularized it in its current form. And then he was dragged through the mud so hard and so brutally that some people think I coined it, just because when I defended him (too little and too late, imo) I withstood the mud-dragging better than he did (and gee, I wonder white.)

And now people take for granted that everything everyone said about hymn to justify that frankly fucking evil harassment campaign was true, actually, and we should abandon the word he coined and find one with purer origins.

If you honestly think "anti-transmasculinity" is just a more practical word, that's fine. I don't care what word we use. But they're going to cover it in mud, too. They're going to cover every one of you in mud.

Will you keep fighting for "ATM" once they make it the new dirty, gross, bad, evil word? Will you keep fighting when they drag you and everyone else through the mud for using it? Or will you agree with them, make up a new word, and never look back?

Please don't let us drown in the mud. We've been fighting for you, and we want to fight with you. Please.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

I’m following the DPRK debates (or trying to at least) but ultimately I’m struggling to understand how to glorify a nation that impedes so heavily on its citizen’s human rights, any insight?

Two things:

First, you shouldn't be trying to glorify anything. You should be trying to understand things and separating truth from fiction.

Second, in that vein, you should be seriously questioning what is being said about the DPRK and why. The US and its allies have a vested interest in ensuring that any socialist project fails, and when they are unable to cause a real failure, they work to make the public believe that it has failed anyway.

The two main sources of the most egregious human rights violations are defector testimony and US/ROK intelligence. If you've been following what I've posted about the DPRK on this blog then you should already know the problems with defector testimony (you can watch this short documentary if you want to know more about that and hear from a few former DPRK residents who rebut many typical defector narratives,) but suffice it to say that the ROK actively pays defectors to make false and scripted statements in the South Korean media, and those who do not go along with the ROK government narrative or who actively contradict it are censored and even face prison time.

Meanwhile, Western intelligence is inherently unverifiable. The best you're going to get is a satellite photo with a building labeled "torture facility" as if we're supposed to look at a roof and be like "uh-huh, that looks like a torture facility to me". US and ROK intelligence officials can and do say whatever they like, but at the end of the day they are the direct enemies of the DPRK and their claims cannot be trusted.

The two Korean governments are still at war; they have never signed a peace treaty. Their conduct must be viewed first and foremost in this context. Both the ROK and the DPRK block movement of people across the DMZ. Both the ROK and the DPRK prevent the dissemination of information coming from each other's nations. Both the ROK and the DPRK surveil their citizens and place controls on the media. Both the ROK and the DPRK place limits on political and cultural activity. The ROK acts to suppress anti-capitalist movements and protect the capitalist way of life, and the DPRK acts to suppress anti-socialist movements and protect the socialist way of life, as both sides view their own political and economic systems as vital to the protection of human rights. On any of these grounds, you cannot fault one side without faulting the other, which is why Western media often opts instead to focus on the more exaggerated and unverifiable claims except when explicitly advocating in favor of capitalism over socialism.

Finally, there is the issue of contradictory ideas of human rights. The capitalist West will insist time and time again that the right to private property is a basic human right, while avoiding or even denying the idea of a right to food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc. as a basic human right. To the West, a landlord's right to evict a tenant is inviolable. To the West, denying a person shelter is more of a human right than granting them shelter. The opposite is true in socialist nations such as the DPRK. That the DPRK holds different values as human rights does not then mean that the DPRK is some terrible oppressive violator of human rights. The right to be a capitalist should not be considered a human right. The right to be a saboteur should not be considered a human right.

The DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies, a non-governmental organization in Pyongyang, published a report in 2014 on human rights from the perspective of the DPRK, outlining their objections to US-led international human rights standards and the progress being made in the DPRK towards guaranteeing human rights. You can call it propaganda if you like, but if you do not even look at the statements coming out of the DPRK, how can you have a rounded view of the situation?

Had the DPRK not succeeded in withstanding the attacks against it, had it managed to become subjugated by the US and other imperialist forces, I do not think we could then say that human rights in North Korea would have been secured and safeguarded. The poverty and inequality that the proletariat of South Korea are afflicted with today would have become the norm across the whole peninsula. Even if you believe that human rights are violated today in the DPRK, you must at least admit that the victory of the US and its puppet government in the South cannot be a means of combating any alleged human rights violations in the North.

[scarlet--wiccan]

Agatha All Along, the highly anticipated follow-up to WandaVision, begins airing this week on Disney+. Now is the perfect to revisit some important information about both shows and the context in which some of Agatha's new characters are being introduced.

WandaVision primarily followed the character Wanda Maximoff and expanded on her family history by introducing her late parents as well her twin sons, who are born from magic and age rapidly over the course of the series.

In the Marvel comics source material, Wanda is part of a large, multigenerational family of Jewish and Romani characters whose stories frequently reflect the systemic violence and oppression that both communities face-- including Romani Holocaust victims, who are critically underrepresented in both education and media. In the MCU, these identities and histories are completely erased, and the characters are all played by white actors. Alternate versions of these characters also appear in the Fox X-Men films, and are similarly whitewashed.

The Romani people are a racialized minority that originated as a South Asian diaspora, and who face severe systemic oppression in Europe and North America. The modern Romani population is quite diverse, but they are not of white ethnic origin, and despite the fact that Wanda and her family have historically been drawn with white features, they are minority characters and ought to be considered as such.

Depictions of witches and witchcraft are often entwined with antisemitism and anti-Romani racism. In pop culture, witches and fortunetellers are typically portrayed as visual stereotypes of Romani women. In the real world, fortunetelling is a profession born from survival work, one which Romani families are often heavily policed and racially profiled for practicing. While Wanda usually subverts these tropes, they are often played straight elsewhere in the superhero genre, and any story about witches, especially one featuring Romani characters, needs to be critiqued in this context.

Agatha All Along introduces viewers to a new cast of characters, including Lilia Calderu, played by Patti LuPone, and the enigmatic "Teen", played by Joe Locke, who is heavily speculated to be an incarnation of Wanda's son, Billy.

In the comics, Lilia is a member of a prominent Romani family in Wanda's community. Often lauded as the "witch queen of the gypsies," Lilia embodies many racial stereotypes about Romani women. In Agatha All Along, Lilia is depicted as an older Sicilian woman, however, being portrayed as a batty fortuneteller with a tawdry psychic shop, she still embodies an offensive trope. Although Lilia is far from "good" representation, this is not an improvement-- if anything, it's even more exploitative.

Billy was raised in a Jewish American household and places a very strong emphasis on his Jewish identity, in addition to having Romani heritage. His identity as a young gay man is always presented in conjunction with this heritage, not in spite of it. Though there is a significance to Locke being a gay actor playing a gay character, his casting-- if he is indeed playing Billy-- is not authentic. White gay representation should not supersede racial inclusivity, and it is not an excuse for whitewashing or Jewish erasure.

Marvel Studios recently announced that the character Doctor Doom will be played by Robert Downey Jr., who is returning to the franchise after many years in the role of Iron Man. In the source material, Doom is also a Romani character with a very similar background to Wanda's. This identity is central to Doom's character-- although he is written to be both morally and politically challenging, the liberation of his people has always been a primary motive.

Clearly, this type of whitewashing is an ongoing pattern in the MCU franchise. Although "Teen's" identity is still unconfirmed and Lilia may, ultimately, be of little consequence, they are part of a larger problem, and Agatha All Along needs to critiqued in that context.

[decolonize-the-everything]

I think I saw somewhere that the alternative word for transandrophobia/transmisandry is anti-transmasculinity. It’s a term coined by a Black trans person to describe what you’re describing, if that helps at all? I just saw ur post that you wanna re-define or find a better word and I wanted to tell u that it exists! Was very relieving for me to like, discover it esp as a mixed race trans guy

That still aligns me with a gender and I don't want that, that's part of what I want to address actually.

I feel like I aligned myself with the masc term to begin with because women are pretty clear misogyny affects others, but others aren't allowed to center our experiences within it or define our oppression with it which is fine. Transmascs seemed okay with me using their term so I did.

It's just that in looking all this up, like I said I realized I needed a word that didn't align me with masculinity or femininity. I'm not oppressed for being a man or a woman or trans I'm oppressed for being none of it and insisting on it. There literally isn't a word for that experience, not in English.

I'm two spirit and I feel like I'd be just as uncomfortable if I transitioned as I am now tbh, I'm considering it hesitantly because of that. Perhaps the HRT I need just doesn't exist and I'm not smart enough to imagine what it is, idk.

I'm almost a trans man, but I'm not and not for a lack of dysphoria but because I don't think transitioning would help. I don't feel like a man, I'm not drawn to anything about manhood and likewise with womanhood. They're fun to dress up as sometimes, sure, but neither are my gender and neither are my ideal sex. It feels like I am both and also neither because the way they're understood is all wrong. I relate to both but would never identify as either one. I use nonbinary most often for that reason.

Two spirit means a mix/variety of spirits/energy rather than having just one. In this case the very rough English translation would be something like a mix of gendered traits like feminine and masculine (which can happen in Many ways). We were considered queer enough to target when colonizers started their pillaging; they didn't like us or our diversity, if that helps provide an image of how a two spirit could present and act within a community.

The adage goes cis people don't question their gender so I'm not that. And I would transition if I knew what magic (perhaps even impossible) combo would make me happy.

What is it to not be a woman, or (theoretically) trans but still experience systemic gender based oppression? Not just for rejecting femininity or masculinity, but for being something else?

We were grouped in with queer people for being definitely queer compared to the average cishet, but not all of us are trans and have genders easily categorized or understood through colonial language or structures.

But I also know a lot of two spirit people don't like the word queer and are more hesitant to use it because it doesn't encapsulate our experiences.

I want a word that does.

And I feel like "discrimination based on having a gender/sex outside the colonial binary" is a decent definition for the system I want to describe. I don't think that it erases anyone else's experiences either and is even inclusive of them, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

what do y'all think of that?

I'm thinking I'll have to make another word to label being actually affected by it.

[mylight-png]

The Political Racialization of Jews

I think we have all seen the people calling Zionism "white supremacy" and Jews "white colonizers" in order to politically justify hating us.

But, what about the Pittsburgh Tree of Life shooting? Were we white then, when that white supremacist barged in and killed our people?

But, what about the worst killing of Jews ever, the Holocaust? Were we white when Hitler systemically slaughtered us in order to preserve his white Aryan race?

But, what about our time in Europe (where we, in fact, do not originate from)? Were we white when we were made to live separately from the actual "white Europeans"? Were we white when we were routinely and systemically attacked in pogroms? Were we white when laws were passed, prohibiting us from buying and selling certain things (ask me where bagels come from)?

But, what about America, where "no dogs and no Jews allowed" was written on businesses. Were we white when Leo Frank was falsely accused of murder, then taken out of his prison cell and lynched when his sentence was reduced? And the university/employment quotas against us? Were we white then?

Were we white any of the times we were hated and discriminated against for being "other" and different from those who were white?

In those days, we were racially categorized as being not white, because being white was seen as "moral" and desirable.

But now, what is the easiest way to strip someone of any right to consider themselves a minority or marginalized group? What is the easiest way to encourage people to disregard one's experiences of hate and oppression? What is the group society considers most privileged, and thus least qualified to define morals and ethics?

White.

We are called white, because the same people who call us white say that anti-white racism doesn't exist. So, how can hate against Jews exist, if we are white?

We are called white, because the same people who call us white view being white as a form of moral taint.

We are called white, because calling us white makes them believe that it is justifiable to strip us of our heritage and deny the fact that we are indigenous to the land they claim we are colonizing.

We are called white, even though according to FBI data, Jews are the most targeted minority group per capita in the US.

We are called white, even though our experiences are vastly different from white non-Jews.

Throughout history, we have been forced into racial categories that made oppressing and hating us easier.

And so that is why, as a Jew, I refuse to align myself with any racial category. Because I know that, depending on which way the political wind blows, no category will be safe or accurate. And because I know that those categories have been used, and will continue to be used, as an excuse to hate me.

[genderkoolaid]

Intro to Anti-transmasculinity (ATM)

(also ft. an about me section)

Defining ATM:

Anti-transmasculinity refers to the systematic oppression of transmasculinity. “Transmasculinity” refers to the concept of people seen as female having a masculine or manly gender or gender expression*. Other terms used for this are transandrophobia, transmisandry, and transmascphobia.

In 1963, feminist Betty Freidan described misogyny as “the problem with no name,” illustrating how at the time, women’s language to understand, describe and communicate their oppression was underdeveloped. Anti-transmasculinity has been, similarly, a problem with no name; transmasculine people have not had the language or framework to understand, describe, and communicate our oppression. Transmasculinity suffers from erasure, often called “invisibility”. This does not protect transmasculine people from violence; it silences us to prevent us from speaking out against, or realizing, the violence done to us. It alienates us from our history, our brothers, siblings and sisters, and ourselves, by preventing transmasculinity from being seen, heard, discussed, or considered. For more posts of mine and others that help expand on the theory of anti-transmasculinity, see my #theory tag.

*This is not my definition of transmasculinity as an identity. This definition is for the form of transness targeted by transphobia, which is based around the idea of "female/woman trying to be male/a men." My definition of transmasculinity as an identity is any form of masculinity or manhood that is trans* in nature, regardless of presentation or assigned sex. I make this distinction because a GNC man assigned male could see his manhood as trans, but be targeted by transphobia based around the idea of a man trying to be a woman.

Who can be affected by ATM?:

Anyone can suffer from anti-transmasculinity, regardless of gender, sex or sexuality. Anti-transmasculine violence targets perceived transmasculinity, which means anyone perceived as transmasculine can be victimized. That is not the extent of how people are affected, though; people who perceive themselves to be transmasculine, consciously or unconsciously, or who have traits associated with transmasculinity can also be affected by witnessing anti-transmasculinity.

(TW: transphobic murder)

People who are associated with transmasculinity (such as partners, friends, and family of transmasculine people) can also be affected, not just through emotional pain but targeted for physical violence. As an example, Italian cis woman Maria Paola Gaglione was murdered by her brother to "teach her a lesson" after she got engaged to a trans man.

Who can be anti-transmasculine?:

Anyone can be anti-transmasculine, regardless of gender, sex, or sexuality. It is a systemic way of thinking that is spread throughout society and culture, and reproduces itself constantly in people's thoughts and actions.

Who benefits from anti-transmasculinity?:

In the grand scheme of things, everyone suffers from the restrictive nature of transphobia. However, in general, only cisgender, gender-conforming people systematically benefit from anti-transmasculinity. Other trans* people do not; trans* people do not systematically benefit from each other’s oppression.

* *trans is a way of writing “trans” that emphasizes it as a broad umbrella term inclusive of everyone who trangresses gender and sex norms

Is ATM caused by “misandry”?

In transunity theory, “misandry” is used to refer to the way that gender roles around manhood/masculinity are weaponized to harm marginalized people, (in this case) specifically trans* people; trans* people are viewed as having the worst traits of both masculinity and femininity, as well as the inherent negativity associated with androgyny. In this sense, anti-transmasculinity does involve misandry, as do anti-transfeminity* and exorsexism**. However, all of these also involve misogyny and misandrogyny***. Which one of these is more dominant varies between types of transphobia, as well as the individuals doing the violence and the ones experiencing it.

To quote this article, "Misandry [...] can never reliably be prevented from collapsing into transphobia."

*i use anti-transfemininity (ATF) as a companion to anti-transmasculinity, as an alternative to “transmisogyny.” This is because, as I explain, my philosophy on transphobia is that all transphobias are inherently misogynistic and all trans* people experience the intersection of misogyny. Additionally, transunity theory frames transphobia as being the intersection of many forms of gendered bigotry, so using the “anti-” terms lets me talk about these transphobias without having to specify it by only one kind (like -misogyny or -androphobia)

** exorsexism refers to oppression of people who violate the gender or sex binaries; it includes intersexism, but also oppression against non-binary people.

*** misandrogyny is the hatred of/bigotry against androgyny, a companion to misogyny and misandry. “androgyny” here refers to anything outside the exclusive male/female binary; examples of misandrogyny are violence done when someone cannot tell someone’s gender/sex, and the idea of nonbinary and genderqueer language as immature, annoying, and pointless, while binary language is considered mature, normal, and useful.

Evidence of ATM:

I have the tags #examples of transandrophobia and #experiences with transandrophobia; the first is posts showing transandrophobia in action, and the second is people describing the transandrophobia they have experienced or witnessed.

I also keep the Archive of Violence Against Trans*masculine People, which keeps a record of events of anti-transmasculine violence. This includes murder, rape, abuse, physical assault, harassment, and the suicides of transmasculine people. Also on this archive is a list of academic research & writing related to anti-transmasculinity; the studies provide more objective evidence of the systemic oppression transmasculine people face, and analyses which can help with understanding how anti-transmasculinity works.

You can also look at @transandrophobia-archive which collects examples of anti-transmasculine Tumblr posts.

Info on Me:

I’m genderqueer, transsexual, and a transvestite; I am a man and a woman and neither (all of which affect each other), and identify with both transmasc, transfem, and transother. I’m also aromantic + greysexual. My sexuality is everything everywhere all at once.

Originally this blog was just made for me to process and deal with my own internalized anti-transmasculinity, but then people liked what I wrote and now its a place where I talk about queer issues & related things I find important.

I’m multiply disabled (both physically and mentally) and I struggle with answering asks; if I don’t answer you for a while feel free to just send your ask again, I will not mind. Also feel free to ask me to explain anything in plain language if you have difficulty understanding something. I don’t mind educating people or helping people find resources, as long as you are respectful and are in good faith and all that.

I am going into philosophy and sociology with a focus on religion, and run @transtheology where I collect posts on trans-affirming spirituality and religion. If you have any questions or want advice related to transness and spirituality/religion (or madness & spirituality/religion) I’d love to help you the best I can.

If you would like to support me, here’s my kofi

Further Resources:

""Transandrophobia" Primer" by nothorses

"As a transfem, what's your insight on the way transmascs are treated when talking about their experiences?" by cipheramnesia

"This is just your regular free-of-charge reminder that when people argue that transandrophobia does not exist, or that its not important enough to talk about, they are explicitly saying they don't care about sexual assault victims or victims of suicide (among other things)" by nothorses

"Transandrophobia Posts Masterpost- 2022" by transgentlemanluke

Pinned post with links to discussions about transandrophobia, baeddelism, and other issues by nothorses

"What is transandophobia actually?" by transmasc-pirate, with additions by doberbutts and psychoticallytrans

"Transandrophobic Fundamentals and the Intersections of Trans Masc Marginalization" by none-gender-left-man

"Hello, I apologise if you've already received questions like this, but can you explain why you would say that transmisandry/androphobia is distinct from misogyny?" by transfaguette

"I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out." by Jennifer Coates

This conversation between doberbutts and folly-of-alexandria

Transandrophobia Explained carrd, by myself

Transmisogyny is not the intersection of transphobia and misogyny by luckyladylily

This post on misogyny, misandry, and transandrophobia by thorne1345

"tumblr can make fun of Blizzard’s Oppression Calculator all they want, that’s exactly how people act with discourse poisoned queer discussions" by cardentist

Invisible Men: FTMs and Homelessness in Toronto by the FTM Safer Shelter Project Research Team

On Hating Men (And Becoming One) by Noah Zazanis

There is a hidden epidemic of violence against transmasculine people by Orion Rodriguez

“Irl we just kiss”: ‘transmasc vs transfem’ discourse & reactionary ‘boys vs girls’ politics in trans spaces by S.L Void

Making Sense Out of the Murders of Trans Men by Mitch Kellaway

Collateral Damage: mathematical odds & the sum of survival. by S.L Void

Op-ed: Trans Men Experience Far More Violence Than Most People Assume by Loree Cook-Daniels

How the Criminalization of Testosterone Attacks Gender Variant People by Adryan Corcione

A Tale of a Trans Man in Pakistan by Ikra Javed

Not transmasc invisibility, but erasure: intricacies of transmasc invisibility, and the fallacies of strictly gendered transphobia by S.L Void

Girlboy Boygirl Blues: antitransmasculinity as a denial of individual history & more by S.L Void

The r/transandrophobia subreddit

[radwitchhh]

There are so many cosplayers in the radfem community, so I am going to put up basic radfem beliefs which are followed by all genuine radfems

1. Radical feminism only fight for women's / females' rights - which is the real feminism

2. Radical feminism doesn't include males

3. It is anti prostitution, pornography, sex work, marriage, religion, cosmetic / makeup industries

4. It is gender critical i-e we radfems don't accept misogynist social notions of femininity and masculinity

5. It is pro-abortion and pro-female separatism

6. It is critical of popular heterosexual sex

7. It recognizes women as an oppressed sex class and that our oppression is systemic. Only women are victims of patriarchy, no m@le is or can be

8. It is intersectional meaning that it considers women of colour, disabled, lower class and caste women as the most oppressed female groups

9. It stands against medical misogyny which most feminists of other branches don't

10. It is against both modesty and hyeprsexualized cultures

11. Radical feminism is also critical of choice feminism as it believes that women's choices are influenced by patriarchy, are a result of social conditioning and years of misogynist coercion. Any woman's choice which harms her but benefits m@les is not feminist

12. It fights for absolute liberation of women from patriarchy by eradicating it from the root. It doesn't believe in equality of sexes because we radfems regard all m@les as women's oppressors

Radical feminism is not a cool misandrist aesthetic which can be confused with any other feminist ideology. It has specific beliefs and brings forward exclusive brutalities faced by women / females.

[shychili]

if a black person doesn’t enjoy the black experience because they experience racism, does that make them not a black person anymore? if a gay person doesn’t enjoy being gay because they experience homophobia, does that mean they are not gay? if a woman doesn’t enjoy womanhood because she experiences misogyny, does that mean she is no longer a woman?

oppressed groups expressing the discomfort that comes with who they are in a world that is utterly cruel to them doesn’t mean they no longer want to be who they were born as. the thing with systemic oppression is that it is designed to make the people affected by it uncomfortable and unhappy, it’s inescapable. thinking women have to be happy within the confinements of our oppression to be considered women or else it suddenly indicates we are identifing out of our material realities is frankly doing nothing to help our situation but only suggests that, unless we ignore or enjoy our oppression like monkeys in a zoo, we should just stop fighting and live delusionally as someone we are not and never will be. if women who don’t enjoy womenhood thought like that there would be no movements fighting for our liberation, which is exactly what MRAs are striving for. this just proves that trans activists are utterly anti-woman.

[pawberri]

thank you for all the posts you've made, your takes are always so refreshing to hear.

I want to know your thoughts (if it's okay with you, you can also totally ignore this) about all the "men hate" I see online. like I (poc transmasc non-passing) get it, there are genuine societal gender problems. transmisogyny does exist-women face more challenges than men do. but it genuinely hurts when women, especially trans women, think it's funny/quirky to call men trash or say they want all men dead or whatever. idk I just am hoping someone else understands, you know?

There's a lot of nuances to this question. First, I just want to caution against focusing too much on trans girls as the perpetrators of this. A lot of the asks I get from trans men seem to really fixate on trans women as the perpetrators of hard line gender essentialism. I really think trans girls are not the main people we should be focusing on here. If a trans woman is saying this stuff, take the time to analyze her ideology outside of that pithy comment and consider how much trauma and how little power she has in the world. That said, trans women are affected by this kind of ideology just like us, and they rarely have the power to wield it against others in the way cis people can. I know it hurts to feel isolated by your own community, but that kinda gets into my second point.

Part of dealing with this is learning an impulse progressive cishet dude have had to get used to over the decade. Sometimes, "men are trash" or even "kill all men" are not literal phrases. They are things women say when they're in the throes of trauma to vent their frustration. "Men are trash" in particular is generally pretty lighthearted and used to complain when you have a bad date or something. You have to get used to analyzing what someone actually means and airing on the side of empathy. You, as a man, are the one with some amount of systemic power over that woman, so you are the one who needs to prove you are dedicated to not being a misogynist. The same thing happens when my friends say they hate white people. I have to assume they don't hate me given that I'm their friend, but that I still have some of the negative traits of whiteness. I need to care enough to be a good friend by being anti-racist and checking myself on my behavior. I need to be willing to prioritize their comfort over mine. That includes not becoming this meme:

Now that that's established, there ARE times when "all men are evil and should die" is an actual ideology. It's an ideology that hurts tons of minority groups before it hurts the most powerful, but it's also not really great if we assume it only hurts cishet white guys. Following it to its logical conclusion, it just proposes a reversal of oppression dynamics. This gender essentialism is a key part of radical feminism, trans exclusionary or not, but it leaks out of that community to general feminism all the time.

As a young person on Tumblr and Twitter, this deeply affected me. I internalized the idea that you can "just be a girl." It was repeated by some trans girls, but also a LOT of TME people. It was framed as trans inclusive, but it's trans inclusive in the way "political lesbianism" is lesbian positive. It posits gender as a moral choice that is completely up to the individual and unrelated to biology. It's the lazy version of "gender is a social construct." I felt sick and disgusting for wanting to be a boy because tons of well-meaning friends of mine had made it clear that "being a boy" was a choice, and it was the wrong one. "Boy" was a social category that could and should eventually be eradicated. Trans women were conditionally supported because they, in theory, made this future possible. This didn't amount to actual support, of course. It was an ideology mostly spread by afab queer people that mostly benefited afab queer people. There were a few trans girls who spread it, maybe some due to genuinely believing in the ideology and some due to social pressure, but there were also a lot of people straight-up grifting as trans girls who used this thinking to feel powerful in a niche community of teens. Remember fucking Yandere Bitch Club???

At a certain point, I genuinely thought of being a man as an unambiguous moral failing, and I lashed out at out trans men because of it. I wanted to feel powerful, and here was a type of man in my community I could shame and exclude. I still feel bad for making a bunch of ~girls only~ stuff in HS that excluded the one out trans dude at our school, my friend, because he was just a ~binary man~ and leaving him with no friends and no community. I treated transphobia like it wasn't a real oppression on its own and, in doing so, perpetuated transphobia. It happens a lot.

I wasn't really able to accept that there was nuance to the concept of manhood until I read this article while struggling to accept my own gender:

This is a pretty seminal piece of writing. It has its flaws, of course, but the empathy and intersectionality it highlights was life-changing. It also shows that this kind of thinking is largely perpetuated by TME people and hurts trans women greatly.

Gender essentialism is a bad ideology, it's a transphobic, transmisogynist, racist, etc etc ideology. It's literally essential to patriarchy. But it's also very easy to repackage into leftism and easy to dogwhistle. As a result, it's natural to be hesitant when you see someone saying they hate all men, but you have to tread extremely lightly and actually care what they're attempting to express. Because, yeah, men as a social class still hold power over women. They still have reason to fear and hate men.

I'm writing a comic about this stuff, actually, so look out for it in the future..........

[probablyasocialecologist]

Safety is a real, material set of conditions: a roof over your head and freedom from violence or injury. British politicians aren’t at risk of being bombed or seeing their children dismembered. Yet it was their speculative safety in the spotlight while Palestinians under military assault became a footnote in the vote.    It’s true, of course, that two British MPs have been killed in recent years. But it’s a cheap shot for politicians to invoke their deaths to avoid engaging with the public about an ongoing genocide. When politicians say they feel unsafe in this context, they mean they feel uncomfortable being challenged by their constituents. 

[...]

When discomfort is perceived as danger, protest is seen as harassment. And when political dissent is positioned as a threat to national security, our human rights are at risk. As sure as night follows day, when politicians begin to cite safety concerns, curtailment of democratic freedoms isn’t far behind. Civil liberties will always play second fiddle to securitisation. Judging by Sunak’s doublespeak at the lectern last Friday, the government plans to corrode our democracy under the guise of protecting it. Sunak’s emergency address was an authoritarian wishlist written in Islamophobic ink: curtail protest rights; threaten to remove immigrants’ “right to be here” if they speak what is considered “hate” at protests; reference streets being “hijacked” by “extremists” and “redouble support” for surveillance programme Prevent. It was framed in response to pro-Palestine protests, but entrenches an established anti-Muslim, anti-protest agenda that promotes surveillance in the name of “safety”. The name of Sunak’s “Safety of Rwanda” bill shows us he already has a cynical definition of this word.  It’s curious how the social capital of playing the protector is often afforded to the violent perpetrators. If we use another very British example, the high-profile transphobic lobby that is obsessed with “women’s safety” has, in material terms, driven transphobic hate crimes to historic levels, but done nothing to end violence against women. In the same vein, it’s inevitable that Sunak’s measures to “combat the forces of division” will create even more far-right racism and state violence for Muslims. The dominant force of division is, of course, the state itself. Trans people and Muslims alike are sociological folk devils; minority groups in society positioned as a threat to social order. The government’s self-authorised mandate to marshal these manufactured threats justifies state control for everyone. In reality, the marginalised groups identified as the enemy within face crushing systemic oppression already. If anyone is unsafe, it’s them.

[nothorses]

I think there's a Thing where any transphobia known to be against a transfem gets called "transmisogyny", which is fine I guess, but idk I feel like transmisogyny is supposed to be the word for the Specific Type of oppression that trans women face, not "transphobia that in this case is against a trans women". Does that make sense? Like if somebody misgenders a trans woman and that's it, that isn't anything more specific than "transphobia", right? Like if somebody were to call me a faggot, I wouldn't consider That transandrophobia simply because I Am a trans man, I would just think of it as generally anti-queer. Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the terms transmisogyny, transandrophobia, etc?

No I think you're right, and tbh I think it's a manifestation (and a really good example) of the "identity = oppression" framework a lot of folks are operating under in these conversations.

It's not something anyone really says out loud, but I've noticed it as a pattern in certain circles; mostly a lot of primarily young, online queer circles.

It's the same framework that, imo, spawned "Transmisogyny Exempt/Transmisogyny Affected" (or "TME/TMA") in which one's identity is directly equivalent to the oppression they experience.

The logic goes: If you identify as X, you experience anti-X oppression. If your identity is not X, you do not, and cannot, experience anti-X oppression.

This is also where we get, like, "misdirected misogyny" as a concept: the logic is that trans men* do not identify as women, therefore they cannot experience oppression meant for women.

Or "slur discourse": if you do not identify as X, you do not experience anti-X oppression, you have never been called this anti-X slur, and therefore you cannot reclaim this anti-X slur.

A lot of other gatekeeping arguments follow similar logic, as do a lot of arguments against acknowledging "transandrophobia" (or anti-transmasc bigotry as a specific concept). Personal identity is understood to be directly equivalent to experiences with oppression, and trans men's identities are thus broken down into their two parts, and assigned corresponding experiences:

Trans experiences

Man experiences

Even understanding "trans man" to be a third identity, with additional, unique "trans man experiences", creates a lot of friction within this framework: a lot of the unique "trans man experiences" we talk about arise from interactions between transphobia and misogyny. But misogyny must be woman-only; our experiences with misogyny are considered incidental, or "misdirected".

If we consider identity to be directly equivalent to oppression, then what, exactly, could these unique "trans man experiences" be?

In this framework, they can only ever be the combination of "trans experiences" and "man experiences"; and "man experiences" cannot contain any unique "man oppression" (unless all men are oppressed just for being men), so "trans man experiences" can only ever be "trans experiences".

When people say "transmisogyny" to refer to any and all oppression that impacts trans women, it's because they understand identity and oppression to be one and the same. Trans women's experiences with oppression cannot be understood as complex & nuanced interactions between different systems of oppression- they are always considered transmisogyny, because the person experiencing them is a trans women, and the oppression of trans women is called "transmisogyny".

It's a reductive and honestly immature understanding of how identity and oppression interact with and relate to one another, but I find it really helpful to understand it when breaking down the flaws in arguments like these ones.

*Some trans men (as well as other transmasculine people) can and do identify as women, and this logic is often applied to transmasculine people as a whole, which erases those folks as well. I'm just not sure what the most accurate term to use here is, honestly.

[fatliberation]

"But I'm dieting, is fat liberation still for me?" Yes... And...

by @drrachelmiller

If you're pursuing intentional weight loss, fat liberation is still for you. If you're pursuing weight loss and are in a fat body, that is so understandable. It's not easy being fat in this world and wanting to move away from oppression makes sense. Here's a gentle reminder that sustainable weight loss isn't possible for the vast majority of people, dieting is a life and time sucking venture, and distancing oneself from oppression is not going to change the oppressive systems.

If you're pursuing intentional weight loss and you're not in a fat body, fat liberation is still for you. And wanting to avoid being in a marginalized and oppressed group is understandable. And dieting is a time and energy thief. And trying to avoid oppression is not going to change oppressive systems. And spending time restricting and trying to prevent weight gain will never set you free. And every time you talk about your diet, share about your desire for weight loss, etc., you are harming your fat friends.

No matter what size body you're in, if you are dieting, you are engaging in anti-fat behaviors and demonstrating anti-fat bias. It's understandable and also we need to call it what it is. You're not bad and you are also causing harm. You make sense and you are also contributing to the oppression of fat people. Both. And.

If you are dieting, you need fat liberation. You may not even be aware of how much you need it because you are being sold the lie that thinness is what will set you free. It won't. It was never going to. Fat liberation is what will set you free. With fat liberation there's no reason to diet. With fat liberation all of the time and energy and money that you've given to the pursuit of weight loss becomes yours again.

If you are dieting and believe in fat liberation for everyone else, I invite you to include yourself. Even if it's not feeling available to you right now. Consider the possibility that you get to be included. Because you are and you do. You need fat liberation and fat liberation needs you.

If you are dieting, fat liberation is still for you. And let's acknowledge that you are engaging in behaviors that contribute to the oppression of fat people. And that dieting isn't liberatory. And that anti-fat bias and the oppression of fat people is what leads you to dieting. You're impacted by it and you're contributing to it. It's complicated and nuanced. And fat liberation still includes you.

[lunamond]

"And yet you toil still in service to men. Your father, your husband, your son. You desire not to be free, but to make a window in the wall of your prison. Have you ever imagined yourself on the Iron Throne?"

Rhaenys Targaryen, Ep 9

There are a lot of moments in Hotd that are quite dumb. But this is probably one of my most hated quotes in the whole show.

What does Rhaenys even mean by this?

"You toil in service of men"???

Ehm, Rhaenys?? That's literally all you've been doing this whole season?!

There could definitely have been a version of Rhaenys (based on the book) who is ambitious and focused on her own power, but that is absolutely not show!Rhaenys. Throughout the show, Rhaenys continuously helps Corlys to advance his various schemes to build his legacy.

Not her or even their legacy, no, it's all about HIS legacy.

She is even willing to sacrifice her children for this purpose (marrying Laena to Viserys, and Laenor to Rhaenyra). And while she is critical of this both times, she still goes along with her husband’s demands.

Her behaviour perfectly lines up with what Alicent says:

“We do not rule, but we may guide the men that do.”

And then the most offensive parts:

"You desire not to be free, but to make a window in the wall of your prison."

Ok? What should Alicent do then? Just casually dismantle the entire system of patriarchy?

This line is just utterly baffling to me. It would be one thing if this moment revealed a deep internal bias on Rhaenys' part, but based on the way this entire scene is framed and discussed by the fandom, it seems to be meant as a badass moment in which Rhaenys really calls out Alicent.

But, if we take this prison metaphor a bit further:

If Westerosi patriarchy is the prison and Alicent crowning her son and exerting power only through her influence over him is merely a window, then what does that mean for every Targaryen dragonriding princess or queen that have come before her?

What have they done to dismantle this prison?

I'm personally confused about what exactly Rhaenys is calling Alicent out for? Is she criticising Alicent for not elevating other women? Is she criticising her for not breaking herself out and seizing power?

If it is the former, then Rhaenys is being quite hypocritical, considering that Rhaenyra, in the previous episode, just convinced her to give Driftmark to Lucerys instead of Baela.

Rhaenys herself has scarcely done anything to liberate herself, her daughter or her granddaughter.

If it is the latter, then this is quite tone deaf, considering Rhaenys is part of the ruling dynasty, almost became ruling queen, and in her big show of defiance is literally breaking through the ground massacring hundreds on a dragon.

Rhaenys calling out another woman who has none of these things for not breaking free of these constraints while she herself couldn’t even manage it is quite frankly dumb as hell.

"Have you ever imagined yourself on the Iron Throne?"

This last sentence is probably the dumbest part of this entire quote.

I'm quite honestly baffled by what Rhaenys is even supposed to mean with this. Is she asking if Alicent ever considered ruling through her husband/son? Then, yeah, that's literally what she is trying to do.

But if Rhaenys is asking if Alicent imagined herself literally sitting the throne in her own right.

Like, no? Alicent is only a consort?! Should she do a coup? Overthrow the Targaryen dynasty?

Ultimately, this scene is just really indicative of Hotd's greatest flaw. The writers are aware that the driving source of conflict in both Alicent and Rhaenyra's lifes is the misogyny they experience, but not enough to comprehend this struggle in a nuanced and complicated way.

So instead, they end up putting their female characters in anti female oppression and pro oppression categories.

Either they're rebellious punk rock and not like other girls, or they are a prudish trade wife and are part of women for trump. Either they're Team Black or Team Green.

This is just super disappointing because for one feudal patriarchy doesn't work like that, but it also takes away all sympathy from the women who don't have the ability for open defiance out.

In the end, the show is more concerned with giving the "good" women, badass girlboss moments, showing how they defy the system.

[horrorcrew-diary]

I just wanna throw my two cents out there as someone who is on the bigger end of the CDD community (I think? We have 100+ followers)

I'm punk. I'm a system. So why am I afraid to use the syspunk tags?

Our old host was pretty active and vocal in cpunk spaces because qi was tired of feeling silenced by doctors for having arthritis at a young age. Qi felt empowered and supported by a community that understood qis struggles. But with the way that things are going now, I cannot see myself active in syspunk spaces (or at least on tumblr. If there was a discord server, I might consider it.)

Punk is anti establishment. Punk is against the grain. Punk is being angry and fighting the system and taking no shit and advocating for the oppressed. But if there's going to be endos claiming refuge in the community that was SPECIFICALLY MADE TO COMBAT THEIR IDEOLOGY, I will not join. I do not want to subject me OR my system to harassment from endos and their supporters.

If you're somehow an endo that I don't have blocked, here's the thing:

You make me feel unsafe. Actively.

I have suffered immesurable trauma and abuse of all kinds. I feel as though endos are appropriating my struggles to seem quirky or relatable. Being abused since infancy is not a quirky personality trait. It robbed us of our formative developmental years, and now I have a disorder that makes the average mentally healthy person shudder.

There is a very large overlap between cpunk and syspunk I think. Fighting for our voices to be heard and understood by medical professionals unites our causes. Endogenics are the antithesis of this movement, because, BY DEFINITION, they are NOT medical systems.

I have a medical disorder. Yes, I also see my alters as separate people and treat them as such, but that does not change the fact that we would not exist if it weren't for our trauma. Our trauma is intristictly woven into our very being. There is no Horror Crew without trauma. There is no ME without trauma. You cannot peel back that layer to find anything hiding underneath. It runs so deep that I'm not even sure what healing would even look like for us.

DID is an ugly disorder. It comes hand in hand with some of the most demonized symptoms in the entire DSM. Syspunk is beautiful because it allows us a space to openly talk about these symptoms and struggles without being silenced.

Or at least it would be in theory! Jesus fucking Christ. We're just as traumatized as fucking war veterans. Would you go to a veteran support group and ask for resources if you weren't one? No. You'd be turned down and told to fuck off. So do it. Fuck off.