#and it's always people who make a big deal about what trans inclusive feminists they are

[velvetvexations]

As a nonbinary person my biggest problem with enby has always been the fact that it's not ever felt like a word. It's quite literally just saying nb out loud but written out. It's never felt like a real identifier. For as much as the shitty I'm just a girl jokes or saturdays are for the boys sayings are like. Scuffed and bad. The words actually sound like they fit and flow in the sentences. Saying I'm gonna go hang out with the enbies later doesn't sound like a word. It sounds like I'm saying an abbreviation in place of a word. Because that's what it is at the end of the day. It never stopped being just an abbreviation of nonbinary but longer this time and it kinda pisses me off that it's treated like a really Good word. It isn't infantilising or anything bc tbh. It's not any more or less mature than someone just saying the damn letters out loud, but it sure as fuck lacks any sense of formality. People can say they're an enby all they want but it doesn't feel like an identifier if I called myself one, it feels like a descriptor. I think nonbinary people deserve a word for themselves that isn't just. The term for their identity but shortened and then made long again. Especially considering that we don't exactly refer to men and women as ems and doubleyous do we. It's petty, but it keeps me from liking it all the same. If a term that took absolutely Zero Effort to come up with is something that a Big group of who it was supposed to describe really don't fucking like, I dont think it's that big of a deal to put in a little more legwork to make something different

That's an interesting perspective. I guess every word needs an origin?

Idk maybe it would be easier if we made some distinction between internal/personal gender (how you conceptualize yourself) and external/social gender (how you are gendered and treated by others) cis people and post transition trans people usually have an internal gender and an External gender that somewhat match. Pre transition trans people have mismatched internal and external genders, which can produce dysphoria. I personally don't have much of an internal gender at all, but my external gender is "woman" based on presentation and socialization. When i say "trans women are seen as men" what I actually mean is "non-passing trans women are perceived and treated as men by transphobes, a role which has a very narrow set expectations and requirements in order to fully access its privileges, otherwise they get the same treatment as all queer/"failed" men, which is different from the experiences of people gendered externally as women in a lot of complex ways." there's no universal experience of gender and no such thing as a "real" man or woman, that's what "gender is a social construct" MEANS. But still! Our society treats men/boys different than women/girls. And the way people are treated affects how they behave! It's not misgendering anyone to point out and analyze those differences, it's just sociology and gender theory. It can be trans inclusive if you're not an idiot.

Post-transition trans people still generally risk discovery even if they're completely stealth. Besides that, I think it's too close to saying one is that gender also if we split it between the two, since why would one take precedence over the other when gender is fake either way? Identity is personal and people who tell you you're wrong about your identity are just incorrect, it's really simple.

someone i see often in transmisogyny discourse (not gonna drop the user) liked a post saying "intersexism isn't real and it's transmisogyny to say it is", unliked it and denied it when it was brought up to them, and is now pretending it didn't happen. what do you even do about that

I have no idea who you're talking about, but that's bad, I guess?

The ‘transmasc headcannons are all self indulgent, illogical and antifeminist. but transfem headcannons are all intelectual, narratively complex, feminist praxis’ thing reminds me of the ‘yaoi is all self indulgent, illogical and antifeminist. but yuri is all intelectual, narratively complex, feminist praxis’ thing (idk how common it is in fandoms that aren’t homestuck (cus istg that fucking fandom))

it's so deeply annoying

ngl I've been repeating "fellas, is it transphobic to admit that transphobes are transphobic?" ever since you said it (or at least something close to it? I don't remember if this is a direct quote or paraphrase because I was very tired that day) in one of the ask compilations because it sums up the whole thing so succinctly and also just feels good to say

Sorry about all the assclowns who are so eager to assert their bone-deep conviction that yes it totally is -__-;;

we live in a bad timeline

For the "trans-inclusive" cis girls who still insist "transmascs are BETRAYING WOMANHOOD" -

Riiiight...so, COMPLETELY irrelevant question, but how did you and your friends feel about the weird girl in middle and high school? You know, the anime fan with the punk clothes and dyed hair? Started hanging out more with boys than girls around the middle of the year? You DID extend the "bonds of sisterhood" to her too, didn't you?

No? You called her a traitor and a freak too? Even before she started hanging out more with the boys, you thought she was just being a holier-than-thou snob because she wasn't interested in the topics usually considered "girl talk"?

Yeah, I can't imagine why she would have felt more comfortable with the boys either...truly a mystery...yeah she really did totally betray you...yep...

women throw around "pickme" like it's the worst possible thing to be but most pickmes have a pretty good reason for being pickmes and women who complain about them should do some introspection

I think Androhomophobia is the word for MLMs speaking on their unique oppression!

noted!

"Why do trans men need a special word" why do trans women need a special word 🎤 do you just consider mens experiences the default 🤔

for transfem TRFs: because men is what trans women are transitioning away from so it literally was the default for them and they have a hard time understanding the idea that some people want the thing they don't want and don't want the thing they want

for transmasc TRFs: because of course they want to think they're the alpha dogs society revolves around they're all misogynists

As someone who wasn’t on tumblr when that “kill all transmascs” post was going around, what was that about?

I reeeeally hope there’s some context that I’m missing and it wasn’t just one of those “kill all men” jokes from 2012 with “trans” inserted into it.

Also, it’s really disheartening to see this kind of behavior from people who you would otherwise trust.

if it's older than this past March I wasn't around either but there was a post going around just a couple weeks ago

As a nonbinary person: the entire enby thing could be fixed if we just could have terminology without it being relentlessly mocked.

Some people are going to be uncomfortable with enby because it sounds similar to baby and that can feel infantilizing. Some people will not think it’s infantilizing. Some people will not care. This is normal. I think enban is a good term even if enby wasn’t made to be used similarly to boy and girl. I think more explicitly nonbinary terms are good. I want to have more terms to describe myself. Only having enby is annoying.

Yeah like...not having the infrastructure of entrenched and codified language is difficult.

I think there's a degree to which this sort of thing is "spreading", insofar as I see an uptick in random cis people making flippant transandrophobic jokes and then acting like it's antifeminist to disagree. HOWEVER, I also think the hardcore TRFs' views are escalating over time to the point that when their posts break containment they often sound so obviously fucked up that people who aren't as discourse-poisoned are noticing it, rather than just blindly boosting like "Trans rights, I guess!".

the legacy of trans radical feminism: making cis people a little more transphobic

did that one op imply trans men can all just girlmode like its no big deal and takes no effort. like i do girlmode at work but that entails shaving daily and trying to keep my voice high despite having dropped like two octaves.

i feel like all that saves the façade is that my coworkers have known me since pre-T plus my tits are gigantic

he did imply that!

I think all the transmascs on here talking about how being seen as a girl is a privilege should try being a girl not wearing a bra. Or binding. Just letting them hang out. It's amazing how poorly you'll get treated. Bonus points if you're also obviously autistic and generally GNC at the same time

(On that note I think there should be more of a movement for people with boobs to not have to wear a bra because they are so uncomfortable for me and make me extremely dysphoric and I'm sure I can't be the only one-)

That used to be a feminist thing but it seems like everyone retreated from that issue.

What are your thoughts on the idea that TERFs genuinely do hate men the most and the only reason they specifically target trans women is because they see them as men that are "trying to sneak into womens spaces"? I think it makes sense on the basis that they treat trans women badly but sometimes ally with cis men who also hate us because those men aren't "explicitly trying to trick them"

I mean yeah exactly lol TERFs see trans women as men in the middle of actively doing a misogyny or trying to perform a fetish in front of them

[i-prefer-the-fictional-world]

This is something I'm very hesitant to talk about but it's constantly on my mind, it has been for years now and I feel the need to let it out somewhere.

We live in a very, very deeply mysogynist world. Misogyny is something every woman (and trans/NB people) regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, wealth, power or privilege experiences almost on a daily basis. Some are harmed by it far more than others but no one is completely un-harmed. It is horrifying and cruel but also normalised, and there are so so many people out there who are looking for any and every excuse to justify the misogyny.

Some of them stick to the old tried and true wokeness ruining stuff narrative, but others have started adopting something far more gross. It's the 'women can be abusers too' narrative.

Let me be clear yes of course I know that women can indeed be the abusers. What I'm talking about here is the weaponization of this phrase. Men use this narrative to hide their own abuse and use DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) to make their victims look like the bad guy.

We (and I'm not excluding myself from this group) so desperately want to believe that if a woman has enough wealth and power and privilege she could become immune to the harm misogyny causes, because if people like taylor swift and Blake Lively are not immune to it then what chance do rest of us stand?

So we are sometimes a little too eager to believe that women are indeed lying for fame and fortune. Actually feminist make lots of genuine efforts to be as considerate and as inclusive of men as possible. We desperately want to believe that any man we like is a good feminist man. And the bar is so low for that. So many men will say and do a fraction of what most women do and still be praised for being feminist. I can't help but think that 'women can be abusers too' often gets used as a replacement for 'she's a gold digger' or 'she's making false allegations to ruin his life'.

There is an assumption that it's just natural for men to be a little misogynist at the start so we are far more accepting of their change and growth. But God forbid a woman comes across as mean in an interview. Also while we are on the topic how many times do we hear men being mean in interviews? Is it just me or the word mean is used for women far more than it is used for men?

White feminism is another term I've seen being used a lot in the USA and western world in general. Most of the times I've seen this phrase pop up is when a rich white woman is talking about various forms of misogyny she has faced. I'm well aware that white feminism is indeed a real harmful thing but even this term is used as a weapon to dismiss misogyny rich white woman faces. It always sounds like what you been through is not a big deal, misogyny is not a big deal, there are more serious/ real issues in the world so stop complaining about this non issue. Someone has it worse so you have no right to complain.

I've personally seen this argument I've seen used against Taylor Swift a lot. I'm not American or white or straight and yet I find myself relating to her experience so often. So it always baffles me because how is her talking about her personal experiences alienating to women of colour? The reality is all women face misogyny in all sorts of ways and pointing to a woman's privilege to dismiss the misogyny she faced is just one of many many tactics. I guarantee you that your favourite non white, non straight, non american female celebrity or you know literally any random women that you know, (and most likely you yourself), also has their experiences dismissed only the wording of it was a little different.

My point is saying all of this is please don't fall for it. Even if the woman is the richest, whitest, meanest, most privileged bitch, take everything negative said about her with a grain of salt and if she is talking about abuse or sexual assault put your feelings aside and believe her.

[lancrewizzard]

Why is it that whenever trans men try to talk about our experiences and the specific problems and bigotry we face, there’s always some chucklefuck who crawls out of the woodwork going “actually sweetie, it’s all misplaced misogyny and general transphobia :) everyone knows trans men aren’t actually oppressed for being trans men :) I’m going to completely ignore all the vile bullshit every terf says about trans men because that contradicts the narrative I want to believe and this way I don’t have to pretend to give a fuck :) right below this post you’ll find one about how we have to listen to minority voices (just not yours)”

[nothorses]

Interview With An Ex-Radfem

exradfem is an anonymous Tumblr user who identifies as transmasculine, and previously spent time in radical feminist communities. They have offered their insight into those communities using their own experiences and memories as a firsthand resource.

Background

I was raised in an incredibly fundamentalist religion, and so was predisposed to falling for cult rhetoric. Naturally, I was kicked out for being a lesbian. I was taken in by the queer community, particularly the trans community, and I got back on my feet- somehow. I had a large group of queer friends, and loved it. I fully went in on being the Best Trans Ally Possible, and constantly tried to be a part of activism and discourse.

Unfortunately, I was undersocialized, undereducated, and overenthusiastic. I didn't fully understand queer or gender theory. In my world, when my parents told me my sexuality was a choice and I wasn't born that way, they were absolutely being homophobic. I understood that no one should care if it's a choice or not, but it was still incredibly, vitally important to me that I was born that way.

On top of that, I already had an intense distrust of men bred by a lot of trauma. That distrust bred a lot of gender essentialism that I couldn't pull out of the gender binary. I felt like it was fundamentally true that men were the problem, and that women were inherently more trustworthy. And I really didn't know where nonbinary people fit in.

Then I got sucked down the ace exclusionist pipeline; the way the arguments were framed made sense to my really surface-level, liberal view of politics. This had me primed to exclude people –– to feel like only those that had been oppressed exactly like me were my community.

Then I realized I was attracted to my nonbinary friend. I immediately felt super guilty that I was seeing them as a woman. I started doing some googling (helped along by ace exclusionists on Tumblr) and found the lesfem community, which is basically radfem “lite”: lesbians who are "only same sex attracted". This made sense to me, and it made me feel so much less guilty for being attracted to my friend; it was packaged as "this is just our inherent, biological desire that is completely uncontrollable". It didn't challenge my status quo, it made me feel less guilty about being a lesbian, and it allowed me to have a "biological" reason for rejecting men.

I don't know how much dysphoria was playing into this, and it's something I will probably never know; all of this is just piecing together jumbled memories and trying to connect dots. I know at the time I couldn't connect to this trans narrative of "feeling like a woman". I couldn't understand what trans women were feeling. This briefly made me question whether I was nonbinary, but radfem ideas had already started seeping into my head and I'm sure I was using them to repress that dysphoria. That's all I can remember.

The lesfem community seeded gender critical ideas and larger radfem princples, including gender socialization, gender as completely meaningless, oppression as based on sex, and lesbian separatism. It made so much innate sense to me, and I didn't realize that was because I was conditioned by the far right from the moment of my birth. Of course women were just a biological class obligated to raise children: that is how I always saw myself, and I always wanted to escape it.

I tried to stay in the realms of TIRF (Trans-Inclusive Radical Feminist) and "gender critical" spaces, because I couldn't take the vitriol on so many TERF blogs. It took so long for me to get to the point where I began seeing open and unveiled transphobia, and I had already read so much and bought into so much of it that I thought that I could just ignore those parts.

In that sense, it was absolutely a pipeline for me. I thought I could find a "middle ground", where I could "center women" without being transphobic.

Slowly, I realized that the transphobia was just more and more disgustingly pervasive. Some of the trans men and butch women I looked up to left the groups, and it was mostly just a bunch of nasty people left. So I left.

After two years offline, I started to recognize I was never going to be a healthy person without dealing with my dysphoria, and I made my way back onto Tumblr over the pandemic. I have realized I'm trans, and so much of this makes so much more sense now. I now see how I was basically using gender essentialism to repress my identity and keep myself in the closet, how it was genuinely weaponized by TERFs to keep me there, and how the ace exclusionist movement primed me into accepting lesbian separatism- and, finally, radical feminism.

The Interview

You mentioned the lesfem community, gender criticals, and TIRFs, which I haven't heard about before- would you mind elaborating on what those are, and what kinds of beliefs they hold?

I think the lesfem community is recruitment for lesbians into the TERF community. Everything is very sanitized and "reasonable", and there's an effort not to say anything bad about trans women. The main focus was that lesbian = homosexual female, and you can't be attracted to gender, because you can't know someone's gender before knowing them; only their sex.

It seemed logical at the time, thinking about sex as something impermeable and gender as internal identity. The most talk about trans women I saw initially was just in reference to the cotton ceiling, how sexual orientation is a permanent and unchangeable reality. Otherwise, the focus was homophobia. This appealed to me, as I was really clinging to the "born this way" narrative.

This ended up being a gateway to two split camps - TIRFs and gender crits.

I definitely liked to read TIRF stuff, mostly because I didn't like the idea of radical feminism having to be transphobic. But TIRFs think that misogyny is all down to hatred of femininity, and they use that as a basis to be able to say trans women are "just as" oppressed.

Gender criticals really fought out against this, and pushed the idea that gender is fake, and misogyny is just sex-based oppression based on reproductive issues. They believe that the source of misogyny is the "male need to control the source of reproduction"- which is what finally made me think I had found the "source" of my confusion. That's why I ended up in gender critical circles instead of TIRF circles.

I'm glad, honestly, because the mask-off transphobia is what made me finally see the light. I wouldn't have seen that in TIRF communities.

I believed this in-between idea, that misogyny was "sex-based oppression" and that transphobia was also real and horrible, but only based on transition, and therefore a completely different thing. I felt that this was the "nuanced" position to take.

The lesfem community also used the fact that a lot of lesbians have partners who transition, still stay with their lesbian partners, and see themselves as lesbian- and that a lot of trans men still see themselves as lesbians. That idea is very taboo and talked down in liberal queer spaces, and I had some vague feelings about it that made me angry, too. I really appreciated the frank talk of what I felt were my own taboo experiences.

I think gender critical ideology also really exploited my own dysphoria. There was a lot of talk about how "almost all butches have dysphoria and just don't talk about it", and that made me feel so much less alone and was, genuinely, a big relief to me that I "didn't have to be trans".

Lesfeminism is essentially lesbian separatism dressed up as sex education. Lesfems believe that genitals exist in two separate categories, and that not being attracted to penises is what defines lesbians. This is used to tell cis lesbians, "dont feel bad as a lesbian if you're attracted to trans men", and that they shouldn’t feel "guilty" for not being attracted to trans women. They believe that lesbianism is not defined as being attracted to women, it is defined as not being attracted to men; which is a root idea in lesbian separatism as well.

Lesfems also believe that attraction to anything other than explicit genitals is a fetish: if you're attracted to flat chests, facial hair, low voices, etc., but don't care if that person has a penis or not, you're bisexual with a fetish for masculine attributes. Essentially, they believe the “-sexual” suffix refers to the “sex” that you are assigned at birth, rather than your attraction: “homosexual” refers to two people of the same sex, etc. This was part of their pushback to the ace community, too.

I think they exploited the issues of trans men and actively ignored trans women intentionally, as a way of avoiding the “TERF” label. Pronouns were respected, and they espoused a constant stream of "trans women are women, trans men are men (but biology still exists and dictates sexual orientation)" to maintain face.

They would only be openly transmisogynistic in more private, radfem-only spaces.

For a while, I didn’t think that TERFs were real. I had read and agreed with the ideology of these "reasonable" people who others labeled as TERFs, so I felt like maybe it really was a strawman that didn't exist. I think that really helped suck me in.

It sounds from what you said like radical feminism works as a kind of funnel system, with "lesfem" being one gateway leading in, and "TIRF" and "gender crit" being branches that lesfem specifically funnels into- with TERFs at the end of the funnel. Does that sound accurate?

I think that's a great description actually!

When I was growing up, I had to go to meetings to learn how to "best spread the word of god". It was brainwashing 101: start off by building a relationship, find a common ground. Do not tell them what you really believe. Use confusing language and cute innuendos to "draw them in". Prey on their emotions by having long exhausting sermons, using music and peer pressure to manipulate them into making a commitment to the church, then BAM- hit them with the weird shit.

Obviously I am paraphrasing, but this was framed as a necessary evil to not "freak out" the outsiders.

I started to see that same talk in gender critical circles: I remember seeing something to the effect of, "lesfem and gender crit spaces exist to cleanse you of the gender ideology so you can later understand the 'real' danger of it", which really freaked me out; I realized I was in a cult again.

I definitely think it's intentional. I think they got these ideas from evangelical Christianity, and they actively use it to spread it online and target young lesbians and transmascs. And I think gender critical butch spaces are there to draw in young transmascs who hate everything about femininity and womanhood, and lesfem spaces are there to spread the idea that trans women exist as a threat to lesbianism.

Do you know if they view TIRFs a similar way- as essentially prepping people for TERF indoctrination?

Yes and no.

I've seen lots of in-fighting about TIRFs; most TERFs see them as a detriment, worse than the "TRAs" themselves. I've also definitely seen it posed as "baby's first radfeminism". A lot of TIRFs are trans women, at least from what I've seen on Tumblr, and therefore are not accepted or liked by radfems. To be completely honest, I don't think they're liked by anyone. They just hate men.

TIRFs are almost another breed altogether; I don't know if they have ties to lesfems at all, but I do think they might've spearheaded the online ace exclusionist discourse. I think a lot of them also swallowed radfem ideology without knowing what it was, and parrot it without thinking too hard about how it contradicts with other ideas they have.

The difference is TIRFs exist. They're real people with a bizarre, contradictory ideology. The lesfem community, on the other hand, is a completely manufactured "community" of crypto-terfs designed specifically to indoctrinate people into TERF ideology.

Part of my interest in TIRFs here is that they seem to have a heavy hand in the way transmascs are treated by the trans community, and if you're right that they were a big part of ace exclusionism too they've had a huge impact on queer discourse as a whole for some time. It seems likely that Baeddels came out of that movement too.

Yes, there’s a lot of overlap. The more digging I did, the more I found that it's a smaller circle running the show than it seems. TIRFs really do a lot of legwork in peddling the ideology to outer queer community, who tend to see it as generic feminism.

TERFs joke a lot about how non-radfems will repost or reblog from TERFs, adding "op is a TERF”. They're very gleeful when people accept their ideology with the mask on. They think it means these people are close to fully learning the "truth", and they see it as further evidence they have the truth the world is hiding. I think it's important to speak out against radical feminism in general, because they’re right; their ideology does seep out into the queer community.

Do you think there's any "good" radical feminism?

No. It sees women as the ultimate victim, rather than seeing gender as a tool to oppress different people differently. Radical feminism will always see men as the problem, and it is always going to do harm to men of color, gay men, trans men, disabled men, etc.

Women aren't a coherent class, and radfems are very panicked about that fact; they think it's going to be the end of us all. But what's wrong with that? That's like freaking out that white isn't a coherent group. It reveals more about you.

It's kind of the root of all exclusionism, the more I think about it, isn't it? Just freaking out that some group isn't going to be exclusive anymore.

Radical feminists believe that women are inherently better than men.

For TIRFs, it's gender essentialism. For TERFs, its bio essentialism. Both systems are fundamentally broken, and will always hurt the groups most at risk. Centering women and misogyny above all else erases the root causes of bigotry and oppression, and it erases the intersections of race and class. The idea that women are always fundamentally less threatening is very white and privileged.

It also ignores how cis women benefit from gender norms just as cis men do, and how cis men suffer from gender roles as well. It’s a system of control where gender non-conformity is a punishable offense.

[slysfreespeechspace]

Endangered Speech

Endangered Speech

Part I

Approximately 15 years ago I noticed the seeds of change. Over the coming decade, a rare mental health aberration grew from a subject rarely given much thought to a pitfall capable of destroying careers and lives if one’s opinions about it were deemed unfavorable.

I certainly did not wish to be someone who made life more difficult for a severely oppressed minority. I found myself at odds with certain other feminists. I wondered how they could be so callous. How could they say that these oppressed individuals who were fighting for their right to exist weren’t really what they said they were?

Transwomen are women.

Well, of course they aren’t biologically women. They’ve taken steps to resemble women because they feel that they were born in the wrong body. Surely, we can recognize them as women in a social context and include them in the fight to secure and protect women’s rights.

I began noticing aggressiveness from proponents of the trans rights movement that I hadn’t perceived from the gay pride movement or from transsexuals of the past. The transsexuals that I was aware of were people like “Annie,” a Vietnam veteran living in Trinidad, Colorado where they received male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Or like Buck Angel, a female-to-male adult film performer.

I read Annie’s story in the magazine supplement of the Sunday Denver Post, and it brought tears to my eyes. Annie was a gentle soul who preferred hobbies like sewing and doll collecting to sports. At the time the article was written, she was celebrating her first doll’s first birthday.

Annie seemed lonely. She said that not many people accepted her. Some of them said unkind things about her, calling her Tranny Annie.

Annie didn’t have a political agenda. She just wanted to live her life peacefully and to have a friend who understood her. I wanted that for Annie and others like her.

I found out about Buck Angel several years later when I was hoping to quit my day job and make a killing with affiliate websites for adult film companies. Buck was born Laura but felt severely dysphoric in a female body.

Buck underwent transition in the early 1990s utilizing hormone therapy and receiving upper body modification surgery to better approximate the appearance of a male body. He opted against phalloplasty as he felt that the surgical technology of the time was not well-developed enough to create a truly realistic, functioning organ.

Buck Angel is, for all intents and purposes, a man. However, he has never denied that he is biologically female. In fact, he strives to educate others about the reality of living as a transman.

Part II

“So, what’s the problem, Sly?” you may be saying. “You don’t bully transsexuals or call them rude names. You think that they should be allowed to live their lives in peace and that they deserve the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. Why are you making a big deal out of this?”

I never wanted to make a big deal out of it. But the things I read starting around 2006 stated that we, as a society, needed to strive to be more inclusive of transsexuals. In fact, the term “transsexual” had gone out of vogue. The favored term was now “transgender.”

I couldn’t see a problem with that. I started replacing “sex” with “gender” in everyday speech. My late father, who was a professor of social sciences, felt that the trend of using “gender” instead of “sex” was sinister. He said that there was an important distinction between the two.

At the time I wrote my father’s opinions off as being hopelessly out-of-touch. He was a devout Catholic and clung to archaic viewpoints, such as a woman must take her husband’s surname when she marries (I didn’t, and it always bothered him) and women should stay home and raise children. In his view, gays and lesbians were welcome to have civil partnerships but shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

I thought that my father was simply stubbornly old-fashioned in his refusal to use the progressive term “gender” instead of the outdated term “sex.” I was wrong. There is a distinct difference between sex and gender and conflating the two has led to the mess we’re in.

Humans and other mammals are sexually dimorphic. This means that there are two sexes. Females have an XX chromosome pattern and produce large gametes. Males have an XY chromosome pattern and produce small gametes. Individuals with variant sex development (VSD), also called disorders of sex development (DSD) or intersex conditions are still either male or female.

In her book The End of Gender, Dr. Debra Soh, a sex neuroscientist, describes the distinction between gender identity and gender presentation.

“…gender identity is how we feel in relation to our sex, regarding whether we feel masculine or feminine. Gender expression is the external manifestation of our gender identity, or how we express our gender through our appearance, like clothing and hairstyle choices and mannerisms.”

Dr. Soh discusses how the levels of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in utero determine the degree of masculine or feminine gender identity and expression. A feminine man is no less male than a hypermasculine man and a masculine woman is no less female than a hyperfeminine woman.

Some people will experience dysphoria regarding their sex versus their gender identity. Some of these people will feel unable to resolve this conflict without medical intervention to make their physical appearance match their gender.

Part 3

Dr. Soh’s book is forthright and compassionate. However, she has been accused of transphobia because she refuses to pretend that people can literally change sex.

Abigail Shrier, author of Irreversible Damage, has been accused of transphobia for her concerns about the elevated numbers of young women seeking to transition.

Maya Forstater lost her position at the Center for Global Development for expressing her thoughts on women’s rights and gender self-ID. Here is what Maya said.

“I believe that while it is right that people should be free to express their identity and trans people should never be badly treated simply for being trans, the material reality of a person’s sex cannot literally change, and in situations where sex matters, it is sex that matters.”

J.K. Rowling, the author of the iconic Harry Potter series, is still being threatened with bodily harm including rape and murder for saying this:

 When women speak up, our security and well-being is threatened.

I believe that the current impetus framing identifying as transgender or nonbinary as cool, particularly when steps are made to physically alter one’s body, including the bodies of children and adolescents through use of puberty blockers, is benefitting a larger entity. Surely it benefits the pharmaceutical companies and the surgeons who perform the procedures. However, having recently watched the film Drugs as Weapons Against Us, I am convinced that an even more sinister group is benefitting from pitting feminists and trans rights activists against each other.

Acknowledgements

The End of Gender by Dr. Debra Soh published 4 August 2020.

https://amzn.to/2VSvbVb

Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier published 26 June 2021.

https://amzn.to/3ALu2NM

Drugs as Weapons Against Us (2019)

https://amzn.to/3meD8yJ

Support Maya Forstater’s legal battle against her former employer here.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stand-with-maya/

I was inspired to write this essay by the Freedom of Speech prompt from WEP.

Because of its controversial nature, I have opted not to share this piece in the competition.

This is part of the reason why I feel it was important for me to write the piece and to share it in other places.

Copyright 2021 by Sly Fawkes Feminist Media

[pepperstrawberry]

Heavy post...*waves to frens*

Warning: Long post... but not putting it under a cut because I specifically want new followers to read this. Mutuals and long time followers? Nothing new here, feel free to hit that page down button a few times XD

So, over the last few weeks, I’ve gained a lot of new followers... and lost some too. Now of course, I generally don’t worry too much about it (or try not to). I know some folk unfollow maybe because it’s been a while and their interests have changed, or maybe in some cases they were dealing with some frustrating things that I happen to be also talking about at the time and so they wanted to get away from it all for a while and it wasn’t really a personal thing. No judgement on that stuffs...

But, I do want to make some things clear for those that have recently followed me and might have followed just because of a cute image or two I made for magic stuffs with the new set dropping:

First: I am a trans woman. I support the full LGBTAQ+ spectrum. Yes, this includes Non-binary, Asexual, Aromantic, and all. I’m not going to argue with folks on the inclusion. It’s just that way. Oh yeah, and Bisexual, both being and supporting. This means even when a couple is not with who you think they should be with (a straight person seeing a ‘bi’ with the same or gay seeing ‘bi’ with different, you know that whole thing... no matter who a bisexual person is with, they are still bi)

Second: I’m anti-capitalist. Yes, I live in a capitalist world, and have to abide by the current machinations of it. I mean, consider things like Patreon, Go Fund Me, and the like. Those are not ‘capitalist’ (though can and have been used in that way), but are a way a community can help creators make a living without having to worry about making every product ‘marketable’. (which is why I’m against the recent shift that Patreon is doing for it’s creators, but that is a whole other post).

Third: I am a supporter of things like Black Lives Matter and other inter-sectional things. Look, the same sort of oppressive arguments, and often even the same people, are used against both people within the LGBTQA+ community AND people of color. It just makes sense to back them up as much as my fellow lgbt friends.

Fourth: Which leads me to being Feminist. 3rd wave specifically. Yes, there are crap folk that claim to be feminist, but that is the case with any group. I mean there are lesbians that are against trans woman, soo... Anyhoo, the bottom line of 3rd wave Feminism is inter-sectional support. Women, LGBT folk, People of Color, and everything like that. And before you go ‘but what about white males?’, consider that that is who holds the power right now. Well, White, Male, and Rich. But many of the things that real feminism fights for also covers things that would help out men as well. Things like better therapy and psychological help. The idea of ‘toxic masculinity’ isn’t the idea that ‘masculinity is toxic’, but that there are ways that being a ‘guy’ has been pushed that are toxic in nature, both a danger for others as well as the men themselves. Remember the idea of ‘real men don’t cry’? That’s toxic. It teaches men that being sad isn’t a manly thing, but to express anger is okay. Which is why we get a lot of these shooters doing what they do.

Fifth: I’m... I guess I’m agnostic? I used to be christian, but I have found that some threads within that faith are... problematic lets say. But I find ANY system of belief (or non-belief in the case of Atheism or however you want to define it) has fringe folks that are... problematic as it were. I judge less on religious affiliation and more on how that religious faith is expressed. I would have more to say on that, but really that is the bottom line. If your faith is more about proving others wrong/judging others over just living the best life you can and helping others, then your faith is garbage. end of story. Don’t matter which god, gods, or even no gods at all you follow.

Sixth: I tend to be a bit of a critic about things. Sometimes I blow things out of proportion, sometimes I don’t go quite far enough. But in the end, I try to be as honest as I can and as clear as my rambly nature lets me. Though, as I always emphasize, I never mean to judge a person on their love of a thing. There are rare exceptions of course. Like, I will judge you if you love “Birth of a Nation” or “Triumph of the Will’ as they are both KKK/Nazi movies and white supremacist in nature. There is nothing in either to be lauded save that they were likely the first movies in their era to pull together several film elements that had already existed (really they were more a triumph of budget then of talent). If you like Game of Thrones because of how ‘realistic’ it is to do -that- to so many women (you know what that is), then yes, I’m judging you. But If you like Game of thrones for all the other reasons -in spite- of -that-, then no judgement at all. Those moments shouldn’t be enjoyed. At best, they should effect you will a visceral disgust as the moments are intended.

I used to (and sometimes still do) reblog the heavier, more ‘polictical’ posts to my other blog @pepperolitics, but after the purge messed up my adult blog, it’s harder to bother with a side blog these days. So there are times where my more direct political aspect comes to play on main.

And really? That shouldn’t be that much an issue when you think about it.

I mean, I try to stay positive and light on my main blog. That usually means the heavy subjects get put to my other blogs. Adult subjects to my adult blog (which is now effectively gone even if I haven’t actually deleted it yet) and the POLITICS go to the political blog...

But that would be the seventh thing on the list of getting to know me:

NOTHING IS EVER NON-POLITICAL.

Nothing.

Now, I will say there is a difference between ‘political’ and ‘POLITICAL’, that is to say: we are human, the way we interact with each other is inherently political. How we agree, disagree, compromise on a day to day basis is political. Manners are political.

All ART is political.

But then there is the capital ‘P’ POLITICAL, where we are talking about government, the big policies, the big moments, the major events.

Where we switch from political to POLITICAL is when we go from things that are inherent, inferred, or basically subtext to straight up text and direct.

In otherwords: I refuse the idea that me suddenly talking about politics is me “becoming” political. I have always been political, we all are. it’s just sometimes, you have to make your politics clear.

Or in other other words: White, capitalist, hurrah! jingoist soilder of things like C.O.D/battlefield is just as POLITICAL as a Woman with a girlfriend and a trans side kick or something... it’s just we have been so surrounded by the former over the latter that we think of it as the accepted norm rather then one flavor of story hero among so many others...

...okay, I’m getting extra rambly and tangental... But that was kinda the point of this post.

Some of you will disagree with some of my points for one reason or another. Sometimes in shades, and sometimes in full... But my base point is, many of my long time followers already know this about me, but some of the new folk might not. And if you are going to stick around, this is the sort of lady you are following.

Hi. I’m Anita Priscilla Barton. Many call me Strawberry, or Pepper, or even just Pep. I am a Bisexual Trans Woman, I love magic the gathering, coffee, and all my wonderful friends and mutuals. And yes, I am a political entity who’s beliefs,  shape her art and critique. Just as all of ours do.

[afraidofa-cat-blog]

Picture a Rom-Com, but Asian, and Done Right

During Hollywood’s breakthrough for Asian American representation (To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before and Crazy Rich Asians) the film Always Be My Maybe maintains the trend of cross culture cinema. What differentiates this romantic comedy, however, is that it is directed for older audiences. The film does not consist of the typical Asian American casting; the exclusivity of Asians hanging out with Asians, or the Asian girl ending up with an American man. This romantic comedy allows for the Asian American community to be represented as… normal. Always Be My Maybe effortlessly breaks the dynamic that Hollywood has structured for Asian American representation with inclusive casting, switch in gender roles, and not allowing for the cultural aspects to be the whole plot of the movie. Always be my Maybe is an example of how Hollywood has been rapidly updating movie characters to change up the original Hollywood stereotypes, especially in regard to Asian American characters and gender roles of Asian Americans on film.

The film Always Be My Maybe includes many features that Hollywood hasn’t done yet; casting is one of them. Within mainstream Hollywood, it is very uncommon, if ever, that Asian Americans are cast as leads for a romantic comedy. Asian Americans are usually cast as extremes, either as too loud or too quiet, too overpowered or too sidekick, but Always Be My Maybe shows Asian Americans as real people; the people next door, the people you went to school with. By normalizing this cross-culture phenomenon, rather than depending on it for the plot, this helps improve the global enterprise and fix the thought that movies come from America. With Schatz and Perren’s article about Hollywood, the article explains the standard procedure that happens when producing mainstream films. The attributes to a mainstream film consist of exposition, complication and resolution; a goal-oriented protagonist who has objectives and obstacles, and American actors and actresses. Although, the casting of Always Be My Maybe is effective in breaking the stereotype, they do not change the mainstream film standard procedure. Instead, they apply it to their own culture, promoting transnationalism. As Schatz and Perren discuss how Hollywood casts white people more than the minority, the Asian American characters of Always Be My Maybe going through similar obstacles and having similar relationships as the typical American film shows how the Asian American community is more mainstream than Hollywood has made it out to be. The film also shows how different people have different personalities because of their atmosphere, and not because of their ethnicity. Different Asians are cast in different lights, for example, the character Marcus Kim, played by Randall Park, plays in a band with no other priorities other than smoking weed. These types of males hardly exist in movies as well, even though there are so many of them, this type of male actually consists of more than half the population at this point. Ali Wong’s character, Sasha Tran, also refers to Marcus Kim as a regular guy, because he exhibits very common attributes with the American men demographic in society today. There is also a conversation between Sasha Tran and her white assistant where she looks at her dish and says, “Add some rice paper, white people eat that shit up,” and her white friend agrees. This comic relief is a subtle hint of satire on the stereotypes Hollywood has created for the Asian community within mainstream Hollywood films. Schatz’s and Perren’s article refer to a quote by Seldes saying, “When one considers the widespread appeal of Hollywood movies and thus the colonization of cultural consciousness on a global scale, it is worth noting that the term Hollywood becomes increasingly conflated with the notion of “Americanization” (Perren, 497). Although, the film Always Be My Maybe addresses this issue that has been shown throughout Hollywood, by casting Asian Americans in roles that are common throughout mainstream Hollywood, it shows that race does not affect the lifestyle when multiculturalism is involved. The civil rights and the feminist movement helped encourage minorities to feel like they had a say in how they were represented because they insisted on the different cultural constituencies within other aspects of Hollywood, hence the birth of Always Be My Maybe.

Always Be My Maybe also represents a shift in gender roles and relationships, as we witness the female lead as a strong woman who can also be vulnerable, and how the Asian male has a good relationship with his father. Also, the Asian father does not have the stereotypical Asian accent but is very Americanized. The change in gender roles and relationships helps stray away from the same structure that Hollywood has used for films about the minority and basic romantic comedies. For example, in Walter Metz’s article, “Love The House and Hate The Work,” he talks about the traditional gender roles within the television series Bewitched. Samantha, the female lead, has a lot of power but uses it to do housework rather than doing the “mortal way” because she wants to fit the housewife role alongside her husband, who is the working man. The analysis of Bewitched shows, “a woman with unimaginable power and she uses it to shore up her husband’s ego, make him look good, help him keep his job, beat down his enemies” (Metz, 166). The analysis of Bewitched contrasts the gender role dynamic Always Be My Maybe transitions to. In Always Be My Maybe, the female lead, Sasha Tran, is the working and successful one while the man is okay with being on the side. Toward the end of the movie, the male lead, Marcus Kim, even professes his love by offering to be “the guy who holds her purse”. As Bewitched consists of the traditional gender roles within the show, the show itself can not fit the formula of mainstream Hollywood that Schatz’s and Perren’s article explains because of the contradictory styles within its series and how contemporary American culture is overshadowed by the typical gender roles. Since Always Be My Maybe addresses content while also displaying the characters in a different role than they would usually have, the endorsement of alternative lifestyles is more impactful within society. This breakthrough is scene through Sasha’s breakdown when venting after her breakup, “They want a cheerleader, not a powerful woman,” is how the gender roles within Bewitched want society to think and are making the powerful woman during Always Be My Maybe think. This shows how the traditional gender roles from the past still affect the present, even though we have moved forward from this in society. Sasha is not only an example of a powerful woman, but her ability to relate to all women audiences within the romantic comedy demographic provides comfortability with an Asian American as a female lead, and the woman being the working one within the relationship. The transition within gender roles and family relationships help normalize Asian Americans within mainstream Hollywood, helping the film Always Be My Maybe support and convey transnationalism.

Within the same era as Crazy Rich Asians, Always Be My Maybe provides a more familiar type of romantic comedy while still promoting Asian culture without depending on it for the plot. The way this is presented is through the concept of framing. Within Kitzinger’s article regarding frame analysis, he talks about how “frames are ways of organizing reality. They invite particular ways of understanding the world”, and Always Be My Maybe helps present the understanding that Asians are just like regular people, not as a separate culture (Kitzinger 149). By airing the film on Netflix, rather than making the concept of Asian leads in a romantic comedy a big deal in theaters, normalizes the multiculturalism making it overall more impactful. Some stereotypes were still present within the film Crazy Rich Asians, because of the way different frames are identified with different perspectives. A similar comparison was made to the days before gay liberation. Before, there was a debate on whether homosexuality was a sin and whether it should be punished, but the realization through a social movement proved how homosexuality was an undesirable aberration which is similar to how audiences did not recognize they were stereotyping Asian Americans in mainstream Hollywood until the civil rights and feminist movement (Kitzinger 22). The civil rights and feminist movement encouraged the differential casting in Always Be My Maybe, improving the points of each protest. There are subtle things within the film that break the Asian stereotype, such as how Marcus’s dad dates a Diana Ross impersonator or how the music score is modernized. The film Always Be My Maybe still includes Asian culture as they talk with Chinese waitresses in restaurants or how they routinely take off their shoes off before they go into a house. As the mainstream elements of the film might make it seem like the film is straying away from Asian culture, a comment about Sasha straying away from Asian culture is made by Marcus about her restaurant, “You’re just catering to rich white people, Asian food isn’t that small,” is also subtly reminding the audience that this film is still supposed to emphasize that a culture should not completely convert to satisfy mainstream audiences. As some stereotypes are true, they are usually way more subtle, and the film Always Be My Maybe exemplifies this beneficially for both cultural perspectives. Framing is the process where reality is organized and controls the information presented to the audience. Since frames carry some meaning and have an impact on audiences, the subtle focus on Asian culture still includes the Asian American demographic in the narrative but also fixes any stereotype that says Asian Americans, or any specific demographic, have to be cast in a certain way.

Within the original structure of mainstream Hollywood, the film Always Be My Maybe fixes stereotypes in regard to Asian American characters through the normalcy of Asian culture and adaptation to modern gender roles. By presenting the understanding of intermixing cultures, Always Be My Maybe is a great example of promoting transnationalism and normalizing Asian Americans within the mainstream film industry. Media has affected the perception of certain cultures and is the reason why certain ethnicities are limited to certain opportunities, but if Hollywood progresses with the normalcy of cross culture cinema, similar to what is shown through Always Be My Maybe, stereotypes will become less of an issue and American cinema will draw a greater variety of audiences.

        Bibliography

Always Be My Maybe. Dir. Nahnatchka Khan. Perf. Ali Wong, Randall Park, and James Saito. Good Universe, May 29, 2019.

 Crazy Rich Asians. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Constance Wu, Henry Golding, and Gemma Chan. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2018.

 Fink, Kathryn. Romance and Representation: ‘Always Be My Maybe’ And The Future Of The Raunch-Com. 1A. June 3, 2019: Issue 2.

 Metz, Walter. Bewitched. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2007. Project MUSE, 2007.

 Perren, Alisa and Schatz, Thomas, “Hollywood” (2004), pp. 495-515. Communication Faculty Publications. 2. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_facpub/2

 Kitzinger, Jenny. 2007. Framing and Frame Analysis. Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, London: Sage, pp. 134-161.

 Khosla, Proma. ‘Always Be My Maybe’ Shines When Its Weirdest. Mashable. May 31, 2019. https://mashable.com/article/always-be-my-maybe-review/

 To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before. Dir. Susan Johnson. Perf. Lana Condor, Noah Centineo, and Janel Parrish. Overbrook Entertainment, August 17, 2018.

[iamnamelessgem]

THINGS I’VE LEARNED ABOUT WHITE FEMINISM

If feminism wasn’t already ‘having a moment’ then it certainly is now. Since the Women’s March on Washington, and its accompanying sister marches around the world, there has been a lot of discussion about the “brand” of feminism that it stood for with a lot of people, especially women of colour and trans women, voicing concerns about not feeling welcome at the events and experiencing problems with ‘White Feminists’. What the march, and feminism in general, is aiming for is intersectionality. But what does that really mean? Quick disclaimer: this is a very brief overview of a complex thing.

Intersectional feminism acknowledges and supports the different women who face different levels of issues; as well as sexism, women struggle with discrimination based on race, sexuality, disability and many other factors, which might make life more difficult than it would be for a white, middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied woman. Feminism that tends to focus only on issues affecting this type of woman, and dismiss/downplay/ignore the additional struggle of women who fall outside of this demographic is known as White Feminism.

First of all, when I use the term ‘White Feminism’ I will capitalise it. Not everyone does this, but personally I find it helpful in distinguishing when someone is talking about White Feminists versus white feminists (as in, feminists who are white). When discussing White Feminism, it’s important to make this distinction; talking about White Feminism is not instantly making a judgment on all white women who consider themselves feminists.

Let’s take a look at this popular diagram by blogger Cate Young (aka BattyMamzelle); you can see here that anyone can be a White Feminist, not just white women. Men, women of colour, anyone - White Feminism is a thought pattern almost as much as it is to do with your actual skin colour. While the thinking might be more common among white people in society, it’s not exclusive to white women, and not all white women fall into the category.

White Feminism is essentially feminism that focuses on issues affecting certain women, otherwise known as ‘mainstream’ feminism, often centred on issues that would affect those women such as wearing make up, shaving your armpits or getting married and taking a man’s last name. Nobody is saying that these aren't valid things to talk about within feminism, but they certainly aren't all that feminism should be about. To give an example, a White Feminist might be a woman who thinks that we have equality because she always splits the bill on Tinder dates, and she doesn't feel undervalued in her workplace. In other words, she might feel equal, but she doesn’t consider the cultural or social position of other women in that equality discussion. I would encourage you to read the rest of BattyMamzelle's blog post on this, where I got the diagram, because she explains in more detail and also gives some great examples of White Feminism that you will recognise.

So, now we’ve had a brief look at what White Feminism is, how do we deal with it? One of the most important things I’ve learned in discussions around the topic is that you have to learn to control your defensive reactions. Hearing people say “white women” and “White Feminists” might make you feel like you’re being accused of something, especially if you’re a white woman, but consider this in other examples.

When women talk about issues such as sexual assault and discuss things that ‘men’ do, there is often a big outpouring from men, like the #notallmen hashtag. This is frustrating for women, because it’s a real problem that we’re talking about and real experiences; just because it isn’t ALL men doing these things, doesn’t mean it isn’t a thing that a lot of men do. You can think of White Feminism in a similar way; when people discuss things that white women do, just because you may not do those things doesn't mean you need to shout about it and undermine their argument. It's not a personal attack. Expecting all women to band together and support each other means listening to other women's issues and opinions too, not just expecting support for things that affect your life. Likewise, when a celebrity is accused of WF, take the time to listen to why people are saying that rather than jumping to their defence because you like their TV show.

Getting back to the women's marches. There has been a lot of discussion about White Feminism and non-inclusive feminism; if you were involved in the events, as I was, it's easy to jump to that defensive place. For most of us, it felt like a very special, aware and inclusive event. But other people didn't have that same experience. A key example, the pink 'pussy hats' worn by a lot of protesters, for some turned into an exclusionary symbol. I understand where this came from, from Trump's own language, and it made a lot of sense as a gesture of togetherness among women. But there were trans women who were very hurt by a lot of the discussion and placards around this theme.

Holding up signs like "No Uterus, No Opinion" might make sense to you. Hey you, men in Washington, stop encroaching on my rights. I get it. But for trans women marching, you've essentially told them that they have no right to be included in the event, or to have an opinion on contentious points over Planned Parenthood, for example.

This is the most important thing I've learned about White Feminism: you can avoid becoming a White Feminist with just a bit of thought for other people. Change that placard to "My Uterus, My Opinion". You're still sticking up for yourself, for women, but you're less likely to be hurting and silencing a load of other women in the process. Likewise, if you read or hear something from a woman of colour who might be criticising an event or explaining her experience, think about how they felt in that situation before you think about indignation you might feel about the term White Feminist. If you're listening and learning and not butting in with how you didn't-do-that, then you're not being one anyway.

This can be an intense topic and this is just one white girl's limited learning. Understand the term. Control your defensive instinct. And listen to people who have different backgrounds and experiences than yours. This is a time for positive action in the world and we'll do a whole lot better at being feminists if we can truly, intersectionally, stand up for each other.

Originally posted on MTV UK

[snarktheater]

Comic Book review — Wonder Woman Rebirth

Happy Wonder Woman Day! I wish I could be talking about the new Wonder Woman movie, but since I'm not getting it in theaters for a couple more weeks, I have to resort to a back-up solution.

Luckily, I mentioned at the end of last year that I'd been reading a lot of comics, especially Wonder Woman comics. And with the completion of the fourth story arc in the Wonder Woman run since the DC Rebirth started, I feel like it's a pretty good time to look back at what the comic has been about, what it's done, and why I love it so much.

First of all: I'm still far from a massive comic book aficionado. I know about comics because I basically live on the Internet (and also, let's face it, because of Linkara), but I'm not really following either the evolution of the DC Universe or the Marvel comic universe. So I'm always happier to catch a series as it starts, especially if it starts anew.

The Wonder Woman Rebirth fits that bill. Part of the DC Rebirth initiative that started a year ago, which didn't fully reboot the universe but did force a clean slate (and some retcons) on most of the properties, it's a series that clearly has roots somewhere, but is written to be accessible to new readers. Like me. Well, kind of. I did read part of the Gaile Simone run before this one, but there's been a universe reboot between the two, so I think it doesn't count anyway.

Another thing: I said it's the fourth story arc, but the comic was actually published with two parallel story arcs at once until now, and all four have built up towards a single storyline.

So we have four story arcs. On the present-day side of things, we have the aptly-named "The Lies" and "The Truth". And in the past, we have "Year One" and "Godwatch". The present-day storylines are more intricately tied together, while the past storyline are independent from each other and mostly connect to the concurrently-running story…to an extent.

The Lies and The Truth are, as the naming scheme implies, two facets of the same story. Diana realizes that something's wrong as her past and memories become confused as a result of the DC Rebirth events, and her investigation leads her to uncover…well, a lie. A pretty big one. Then comes The Truth, where she tries to uncover…well, what the truth really is. Wow, am I being vague with this recap. But really, there's little way of explaining it beyond that.

Year One, meanwhile, follows Diana's first year as Wonder Woman, complete with Steve Trevor crashing on Themyscira and Diana leaving to the "world of men" with him, knowing that she can never return. Of course she does this with a reason: signs have appeared that Ares, the god of war, had escaped from his prison, and Diana must stop him.

Godwatch, finally, follows the backstory of, well, Godwatch, an antagonistic organization that appears near the end of The Lies and is our primary villain throughout The Truth. The comics still feature Diana, of course, but she's not aware of who's pulling the strings of the fights she's involved in. This may make this story arc seem trivial, but it it not.

Why do I love this four-part, twenty-four issues story? Well, on the surface, it's just really well-crafted. The plots intertwine, setups are made that pay off long afterwards and feel natural and no element feels out of place in hindsight. The world surrounding the Amazons is built with precision and with a fresh take that divorces them from Greek culture specifically and gives them a more universal edge. The main characters are fleshed-out and well-rounded, featuring Diana and Steve, naturally, but also Etta Candy, reimagined from Steve's assistant with an unrequited crush to his superior officer (on top of being a black woman, which I understand is the case since the New 52 reboot), Barbara Ann Minerva, the villainous "Cheetah" being now a scientist with a fascination for the myth of the Amazons and a feminist streak…

…and Veronica Cale, the head of Godwatch, who has a troubled past of her own and is really just trying her best. Plus, a few more characters to round out the cast (and of course, a bunch of Amazons in the early issues who stay very relevant afterwards, in spite of everything).

But it's not just that it's a well-crafted story. This run has themes, and they're good, and I want to talk about them. And I'll split it in two broad categories for the sake of structure

Queer and feminist themes

I'll start with this one because…well, it's more incidental. Although it's really important too, don't get me wrong. But it's more…there, rather than something the story is trying to make a point about.

And really, it's long overdue. Diana comes from a society of only women. She's the most famous superheroine in existence. If anyone's story should primarily focus on women (and it does, if you look at my list of protagonists) and feature some pretty major queer women, it's this one.

And this series delivers on that front, too. Queen Hippolyta of the Amazons calls her general Philippus "my love", Etta Candy and Barbara Ann "Cheetah" Minerva are implied to be a couple when the latter isn't busy being a monstrous demigod, villain Veronica Cale and her associate Adrianna are definitely intimate and Veronica's daughter Isadore "has no father"…it's all there. And of course, there is Diana herself:

Diana of Themyscira is canon bi in this series. And I do mean bi, since she also has a thing with Steve Trevor and apparently a romantic past with Superman, although that one I think is due to earlier comics that we get the sense the writers here would have happily done away with.

And the greatest thing (especially considering the writer is male) is that all this representation of queer women is done without a single objectifying scene of any of these women. The one more thing I could ask for at this point are trans Amazons, really. But still, that's some giant steps forward.

It's not just queer representation. The story, as I mentioned, is focused primarily on women. Diana's gang includes herself, Steve, Etta and Barbara Ann, and the latter is the first she can even talk to outside of Themyscira, while Etta is definitely her closest friend. The first antagonist of The Lies is Urzkartaga, the god who cursed Barbara Ann to be Cheetah, and he's a literal misogynistic god with a cult of literal misogynists. So that's one obvious message there.

Also—and I'd be remiss to mention it—that head of that cult, Cadulo, gives us my favorite Steve Trevor moment.

So, you know, no big deal. Let's just have every single protagonist in the series denounce aspects of the patriarchy and fight literal misogynists.

The bigger antagonist of the entire story arc, Veronica Cale, is on the opposite end, in that she's humanized thanks to the Godwatch prequel stories and given motive for standing against Wonder Woman (spoiler: she's more or less coerced). Bonus point since, when the coercion is lifted, she immediately stands down instead of going on being evil for no reason, which I almost expected to happen but never did.

And you also have some racial inclusiveness. On top of Etta, as I mentioned, the Amazons are moved out of Greece and are now multicultural, and a few prominent figures (like Philippus, whom I already mentioned, and a woman who appears to be the Amazons' chief scientist). I'm not going to say it's the most balanced ratio I've seen (because…it's not), but considering how many "iconic" characters we're dealing with here, I think the books are faring remarkably.

Truth and compassion

Linkara defines Wonder Woman as the "spirit of Truth", and I think that's the best way to describe her. I realize that sounds like a meaningless, pompous title, but it actually captures what she's about fairly well.

Outside of the obvious (her lasso makes people tell the truth), the idea of Wonder Woman as the spirit of truth is also well explained in her post-Crisis on Infinite Earth backstory (which is also shown in that video I just linked), where one of the powers she received is to "open men's hearts". Which, no, isn't about romance—I think.

It's truth, but it's also all that derives from it. Above all, something I think is best explained in the recent annual issue of this very series:

Understanding. And with it, empathy and compassion. Which defines Wonder Woman's heroism. To me, the Big Three of DC's universe, at their best-written, convey very identifiable and humanist messages (in the classic sense of the word, not in the "shouldn't feminism be called humanism if it's about equality?" nonsense).

Batman is the heroism humanity can achieve (and note that I'm not talking about edgelord Batman here like in Batman v Superman, I'm talking about the guy who adopts a whole gaggle of children because he can't see anyone else grow up alone like he did), through wits and resourcefulness (and, admittedly, money). Superman is the value of humanity; what makes a god-like being like him heroic is that he is human and understands humans (again, not something we see in the Snyderverse much), and cares about them. And Wonder Woman is the in-between, the demigod (not necessarily in-universe) who embodies the best values of what humanity can be.

There's obviously some intersection, and probably also better ways to phrase it (let's be real, there's probably an essay's worth of discussion in what I just said in a paragraph), but that's the gist of it.

A few very popular frames from Wonder Woman are the one that shows Batman could never identify a weakness for her, and another where she says she doesn't have a rogue's gallery like Batman and Superman because "when I deal with them, I deal with them". Both of these are cool and badass, but they omit the reason why both of these things are true (in theory if not always in execution, because, again, inconsistent writers): her primary weapon is compassion and understanding. At her best, she solves the problem that drove her villains to villainy in the first place (which is exactly what she does in this series with Barbara Ann as Cheetah), and only resorts to force as the final resort, like with Urzkartaga. And that brings us to the resolution of this story.

Minor spoilers in the next few paragraphs.

It turns out that the big villain behind everything Diana had faced throughout this story wasn't Ares as she thought—he never even left his prison on Themyscira. Instead, it's his sons, Deimos and Phobos (terror and panic), who want to usurp Ares as the god of war. See, when Ares was bound to his prison, he was allowed to see the madness that war brings, so he doesn't really want to be released.

So Diana has to stop Phobos and Deimos, literal gods, from killing their dads. How does she do that?

Yup.

End of the spoilers.

It's the same thing with Veronica Cale, though I won't go into details over why. Diana deals with her enemies by understanding them. Even Urzkartaga is defeated through Diana's empathy, not for him, but for his victims.

On a greater level, the final battle of the story sends a powerful message: that truth, understanding and compassion are greater than fear, anger and violence. They are far more powerful tools to solve a problem. And that's a pretty powerful message to send, especially in a superhero comic.

And that's what Wonder Woman being the spirit of Truth means to me, why I love this comic series, and incidentally, why she's my favorite superhero across the board. Oh, yeah, did I mention that she's my favorite superhero? I might have wanted to start with that.

Happy Wonder Woman day, everyone. And now I'll go back to anxiously waiting until I can see the movie, while hoping very, very hard that I won't be disappointed by it. But if I am, I'll know I can go back to these comics to find the heroine I love.

Also, if you're interested in checking these out for yourselves (and you absolutely should), Comixology is currently having a Wonder Woman Day sale until June 5, which includes the first seven issues of this series, so go take advantage of that!

[jameelajamilfan]

Press/Video: Jameela Jamil Is Shutting Up and Making Space in 2019

New Post has been published on https://jameelajamil.org/2019/02/01/press-video-jameela-jamil-is-shutting-up-and-making-space-in-2019/

Press/Video: Jameela Jamil Is Shutting Up and Making Space in 2019

The ‘Good Place’ actress and body positivity activist joins the #AerieREAL role model family.

If you’re familiar with Jameela Jamil’s, work you may know her for a few things: her role as the narcissistic but always well-intentioned Tahani Al-Jamil on NBC’s The Good Place; her fiercely vocal stance against photoshopping and airbrushing in advertisements and magazine covers; her news-making tweet in which she hoped certain celebrities “shit their pants in public” for hawking “detox teas” that promise to help with weight loss and bloating. In her 32 years on earth, the British actress has battled an eating disorder, hearing loss, and a car accident that broke her back. Yet she’s come out on the other side, starting a beloved life positive moment called “I, Weigh” and as of today, Jamil is one of the newest members of the #AerieREAL Role Model family for spring 2019. Ahead of the reveal, I phoned Jamil to discuss how the body positivity movement can change moving forward, why she wished Aerie existed when she was a teen, and why in 2019 she’s making space, not taking it.

When Aerie revealed you were going to join their campaign, it seemed like a match made in heaven. Why did you want to work with them?

I wanted to work with Aerie because they’re one of the only brands I’ve ever seen actually take inclusion seriously, and it’s not performative. It runs throughout the entire brand: their desire to reflect, on their website and in their stores, what we see outside in everyday life, which just never happens. Seeing people from all walks of life and all ages modeling underwear and modeling clothes was just such a breath of fresh air. When I walked into their store I realized how much I could’ve benefited from having a store like that and a company like that when I was younger, so I was very excited to be a part of it. Your body’s been through a lot, between an eating disorder and a serious car accident. How has that affected the way you treat your body now?

I treat my body with great respect now and I make sure to check in with it and thank it every so often. Because I’m aware of what it’s like to not be able to go to the toilet by myself, or to be able to breathe because I had asthma, or be able to hear, because I was deaf as a child. I also stopped menstruating when I had an eating disorder, so my body has been in jeopardy so many times that I’ve, frankly, by the age of thirty, a little bit late but better late than never, learned to treat it with lots of kindness and respect. I don’t talk shit to myself anymore. Every time it crops up I stick up for myself the way that I would for a friend or for a stranger even. The things that women say to themselves in their head, they would never tolerate being said to someone that they love. So I’ve decided to be my own best friend.

I’ve become the loudest voice that’s been allowed in body positivity and I think that has given some people the wrong idea.

How does being your best friend manifest itself?

I did EMDR therapy, which is a specific kind of therapy that removes the conditioning of irrational thought. So it goes right to the core of the problem. It’s very good for PTSD, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and OCD—all of which I had. Within a matter of months, it just sort of extracted the root of the problem, which meant that I didn’t have to deal with the symptoms anymore. So that was a big thing that I did. I also made the decision three years ago that most of my money that I would spend on corrective or beauty items I’d save up for therapy. I started doing that when I was 29, and that was probably the biggest act of self love I’ve ever done. So no cellulite cream, no stretch mark cream, nothing anti-aging, I just put all of my money into a piggy bank that I would’ve spent on must have products. I just did therapy and then bought myself some self love.

Body image and body positivity can be super personal. How do you discuss these topics without alienating people?

I link body positivity with mental health, which makes it a much bigger and broader conversation. I think that we don’t do that enough I think I’ve kind of moved it more into a life positive movement and more into mental health discussion, and I think we can all relate to that. Body positivity is something that we have to be very conscious of not leaving women who are of minorities out of. We need to include everyone, so I just make sure to be inclusive with my language and make sure that I’m involving activists from different minorities in my work and giving them a platform in order to make sure that everyone knows it’s a conversation for all of us to have.

For example, the MeToo movement got kind of taken over by a lot of very famous, slender, predominantly white, straight women actresses. I think it’s important not to let that happen with body positivity, which it does happen. Often, in the last year I’ve become the loudest voice that’s been allowed in body positivity and I think that has given some people the wrong idea: that I think that I speak for all people, which I don’t. It’s just that I have a platform and a privilege that allows me to be listened to and heard, when other people who are actually struggling with these things are being ignored. I’m not afraid of being annoying, I’m just afraid of being complicit in a problem that is systemically destroying the mental health of most of the women around the world.

So how do you deal with the criticism?

I don’t take it personally anymore, and I think I used to get defensive and when I would be called out for not being intersectional enough or just feel frustrated that people were expecting too much of me, but now I just shut up and I listen and I realize that there are people who are going through a lot and I would like to help those people, so I just focus on the good. I also don’t receive a lot of negativity or backlash. Most people support me and my profile growing in the way that it has, has been a sign of mass support of so many people who were just done, they feel the same way as me. I’m not on the wrong side here, I’m on the right side, the feminist side of mental health of young people and their well being internally and externally, of women and people everywhere.

The hashtag is #AerieReal. When do you feel you’re most real?

I feel I’m most real when I’m cuddling my boyfriend, I do [laughs]. I feel most real when I’m spooning. There are so many great role models. Who are some of your own role models in this space?

I mean, Samira Wiley is one of them, so I was super starstruck to meet her and to be photographed alongside her. That was a big seal of approval. Janet Mock is someone that I’m very, very obsessed with, and think that what she has done for our culture is just so extraordinary and she’ll be remembered forever and go down in history as such a game changer for the trans community. Roxanne Gay, I think she’s a real hero of mine, and her books have taught me so much and called me out so brilliantly. As in, in reading them I’ve been able to find my own mistakes and learn, via her, how to do better and be better.

I think we bring a lot of ego into activism and wokeness these days.

What did you learn from her books?

I’ve learned from her books about white feminism and how much we could leave people out of the conversation and what makes you a bad feminist and how you can call yourself out, and that that can be okay to make mistakes. You know, she calls herself out on her own blind spots, and I think that’s a really important thing to do. I think we bring a lot of ego into activism these days and ego into wokeness. I think that that can sometimes make you afraid of admitting when you don’t know something, and therefore you don’t ask, and therefore you don’t learn. Even someone as brilliant and accomplished and educated as Roxanne Gay, to sometimes owning up to her weaknesses or her blind spots, has been so inspiring so many people that I know, because it makes you feel like it’s okay to just keep learning and if you’re a bad feminist now, it doesn’t mean you’ll always be a bad feminist.

We’re having a lot of conversations in the office about the kind of energy that we’re bringing into 2019. How would you describe the energy you’re bringing into this year?

It’s make space, don’t take space. That’s the thing that I’m gonna bring into 2019, is making sure that I create space for other women. I create space for people from minorities, and people who are living in experiences that I have not myself had to live through. Recently I turned down a role of a deaf woman, because even though I used to be deaf as a child, I’m no longer completely deaf. And so that role should go to someone who still currently cannot hear because there’s a brilliant deaf actress out there somewhere who we don’t know her name, but she can’t get the role. I do think it’s really important to start to make sure that we stop being greedy and we just step aside for one another, and don’t fear each other. We’ve been taught to fear each other by men, and feel like there’s only space for one, and that’s a lie. That’s so that we don’t all join together and take up loads of space and become equal. So supporting other women, making sure that I put my money where my mouth is, and pass the mic.

Source: Elle

[thedeadflag]

I've been thinking about something - would love your thoughts on it. Is it transphobic for cis women to walk around with "pussy power" signs? I have, and I don't claim to speak for all women when I do. I know not all women have vaginas. But for me, my personal brand of womanhood has a lot to do with the fact that I do, and what that means. Do you have to speak for all women when protesting as a feminist? I want to be inclusive and also speak out about my subjective experience of womanhood 1/2

2/2 I also get that only ever preaching about your own issues and experiences is not intersectional, and not cool. I definitely will and do show up for my trans sisters as well. I’m just wondering where the line is drawn. When I’m speaking from my unique experience of being a woman (a white, cis, lesbian woman, in my case) and when I’m being excluding. I want to know so that I can do better, if I need to. If you feel you have the time, as I said, would love to hear your thoughts!

I mean, the big issue with things like protests, marches, etc. is that there’s no actually detailed dialogue happening, no nuance. And depending on demographics, it can be easy for a themed march to take on a certain message if enough people present it in their one-liners, slogans, etc. they have on their signs and clothes.

That doesn’t have to be a bad thing, of course, but it can pretty easily erase the more marginalized who are made less visible or invisible by the others, or whatnot.

So is it transphobic for cis women to attend Women’s protests/marches with “Pussy Power” signs? A few? Probably not. A majority? Yeah, probably.

That can, of course, be potentially moderated by also carrying or wearing things that visibly (as in, not a tiny pin or some shit) fight the cissexist reaction to equate vulvas/vaginas/etc. to womanhood. 

Like, you could have a sign that says “Pussy Power” on a backdrop of the trans flag colours. Or display the trans symbol somewhere visibly. Anything to complicate the general cissexist message that would otherwise be sent loud and clear.

Like, again, you asked:

“Do you have to speak for all women when protesting as a feminist?” 

That’s how protests work. A group of people gather under a unified banner and present a message (or a few messages). If one of those messages, due to volume alone, equates vaginas and co. to womanhood, then yes, that is the message that the group and all of the participants will be sending, regardless of individual intent or beliefs. 

Outside of the context of protests, it’s a lot easier to be clear and nuanced about your views, and when you’re speaking as an individual, and the ways your body has shaped your experiences of womanhood, etc.

In protests, you’re just a statistic, no one cares about any of that, and chances are, no one will see/hear any of that nuance. They’ll see the result of the whole. 

Like, take, for instance, back in the 00s, when ENDA was trying to be passed, and Barney Frank insisted that he had to drop trans people’s protections from the bill so that cis LGB folks could get protections. Communities country wide would talk about this, and many would end up taking a certain stance on it. And a lot took the stance that yes, Barney Frank was right, rights for some is better than rights for none.

That, of course, sent a message that trans people were expendable, and were an acceptable sacrifice. Maybe some individuals who supported dropping the T did understand us, and love us, and want to fight for us and thought this was the best way. Didn’t matter. In the end, we got silenced and thrown under the bus, and apologies or individual clarifications yelled down at us from inside of the bus, while we’re stuck under the wheel well? Not really going to fly.

It’s a common issue that we were very critical of across the years, because… despite promises and pleas for forgiveness, that “we’ll come back for you! Support us getting our protections, and we’ll have so much energy and more power to help get you yours!”, that literally never happened. Ever.

Like, Canada won Same Gender Marriage in 2005, and we’d heard all of those promises leading up to its legalization. That our cis allies would make a hard push for trans rights across the country right after, to use that momentum we helped fight for to get us our protections and freedoms.

That never came. Since mid 2005, the only rights and protections gained by trans folks were purely due to trans people fighting for our rights. LGBT-wide support for trans folks collapsed whenever our issues were raised, so we had to do it ourselves.

Same in the states. Same Gender marriage passes, and then suddenly the HRC and GLAAD and all the major LGBT+ orgs are incapable of effectively fighting for (and raising awareness of) trans rights issues unless cis LGBT rights are also at risk (in which case, a huge deal is made, and all the major orgs pull out all the stops, and there’s the usual backlash of “drop the T” in blaming us for their rights being attacked).

SO when we hear the same sort of angle from cis women regarding women’s rights and women’s protests, that it’s okay for us to be silenced and erased by the volumes of cis women focusing on “cis women things” (which are rarely cis women things, but things that many many people experience), we are usually rightfully wary. Especially given how pervasive and unchallenged cissexism is in society, and in most feminist and women’s spaces. 

Like, I’ve met a hell of a lot of cis women who don’t think trans women’s reproductive rights are attacked. I’ve met less, but still a significant amount, that believe trans women aren’t sexually assaulted due to our bodies or misogyny. I’ve met a significant amount that think trans men are justifiably more welcome than trans women because they feel that trans men are female and trans women are male, if not fully, then at least when it comes to bodies (which is still wrong). I’ve heard a lot of cis women assert that trans women don’t face a widespread issue of healthcare access like, say, the issue of obtaining accessible and affordable birth control (when, like, our access to puberty blockers and HRT and GAS/GCS is still intensely gatekept via sexist and misogynistic controls and policy, which in turn often keeps us from being able to be recognized as real and legitimate by our governments due to them requiring we go through these steps to be seen as valid/real, etc. etc.). Among a plethora of other cissexist misunderstandings.

I’ve met a tremendous amount of cis women who make this ideological separation between “is” and “identifies as”, that distances trans women from womanhood, as if we’re not full women in body and mind, as if cis women experience the whole range of womanhood, and trans women only experience what overlap we have with cis women, with all other experiences simply being “trans-related”. And that’s just false. Just like the notion that, deep down, trans men are really just women playing as men, or that NB folks are really what they were assigned at birth, etc.

A trans man’s genitals are male genitals. Doesn’t matter what they are. A trans woman’s genitals are female genitals. Doesn’t mater what they are. Non-binary folks’ genitals are their genitals, regardless. Most folks haven’t come around to that truth yet.

Like, by default, trans and NB and intersex folks get erased and invalidated and misgendered. That’s the default status quo, and even if you as an individual are aware that trans folks exist and whatnot, and understand us, that does not mean the majority of people do in any meaningful, accurate way. And so it’s important to challenge cissexism when provided the opportunity, to not let trans, NB, and intersex folks be acceptable sacrifices for cis women’s convenience during events.

But also that outside of major events, that you challenge cissexism, and educate people about cissexism, because people generally have no clue what it is, so they won’t be able to recognize it, and if they can’t recognize or understand it, they can’t fight it. And if they can’t fight it, things will always be shit for us.

tl;dr: If you’re part of a larger group, you’re not speaking for yourself, you’re just one cog, and together as a whole, you produce certain dialogues. Some of these might not fit with your individual views or experiences, but it is what it is.If you’re in a one-on-one, or in a group speaking as an individual, or online within the context of personal experience, etc. then yeah, that’s you.

[wionews]

From Nazis to Trump, Gay pride rallies have always been under attack

This month, hundreds of thousands of people around the world will join gay pride marches in cities big and small. In many cities, pride marches are controversial. In some – like Moscow – they are even banned. But for many people in North America, parts of Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, attending the local pride march has become an unremarkable ritual of summer.

There are still good reasons to march. Few countries around the world have robust protections for gay and transgender rights. And pride marches, the LGBTQ political rallies that take the form of exuberant, outrageous parades, often meet hostile counterdemonstrators.

But such expressions of pride have faced another sort of opposition: from within the queer and trans communities themselves. One reason is that gay and trans rights doesn’t describe a single, unitary political movement.

I am a historian of queer and trans politics. My research, together with that of James Steakley, Katie Sutton, Robert Beachy and many others, shows that there are several traditions of gay and trans activism. These traditions have not always gotten along. And some of them hate what pride is all about.

A history of multiple movements

Gay and trans rights movements are quite old. For more than 100 years, political groups have been fighting on behalf of same-sex desires, gender nonconformity and transition from one gender to the other – although the terms “gay rights” and “trans rights” are relatively recent inventions.

By the late 1800s, a movement that called itself “homosexual emancipation” formed in Germany. It boomed after World War I and flourished in the 1920s under the democracy that existed before the Nazis took over. The movement included people who called themselves “transvestites.” Were they alive today, many would probably use the term transgender.

From the beginning, gay and transgender activists split into a dizzying array of factions. All were in favor of greater legal and social tolerance for same-sex relationships. But beyond that narrow common ground, they were a political hodgepodge.

Some were leftists. One prominent leader of a gay rights group was also an important player in Berlin’s communist party. Others were middle-of-the road, calling for the end of Germany’s law against sodomy but otherwise content with the status quo. There were even right-wing, explicitly racist gay rights activists.

The Nazi Party itself was zealously anti-gay. Once in power, the Nazis murdered thousands of men for the “crime” of male-male sex. Yet, the historical record shows that a small number of men quietly belonged to both the homosexual emancipation movement and the Nazi Party, though they were not open about their sexuality within the party. Historians are still debating the significance of homosexuality in the Nazi Party. The small faction of gay fascists lauded erotic relationships between manly, “Aryan” soldier types while loathing feminists, Jews and leftists.

As you might imagine, these different camps within the homosexual emancipation movement did not agree on lots of things.

A debate about discretion

One of their big disagreements was about discretion: Was it acceptable for same-sex couples and gender nonconformists to cavort in view of the straight public?

The 1972 film ‘Cabaret’ is set in Berlin prior to the Nazi seizure of power. The story deals with homosexuality and the rise of Nazism. Fifty years before pride marches began, 1920s Berlin had a jumping nightlife of gay male, lesbian and transvestite establishments featuring clubs like the Eldorado – known for its cross-dressing wait staff – and dance palaces like the Magic Flute. There was even a yearly all-women moonlight cruise. The pre-Nazi government’s approach was live and let live.

Not all advocates of gay rights, however, liked this public culture.

One man, a self-professed gay Nazi, wrote that Berlin’s clubs were “insalubrious” places where people surrendered to their animal lusts, and that “the general public inevitably gets the impression that it” – that is, the gay rights movement – “is all about sex.” This man wanted to celebrate homoerotic comradeship, a spiritual love, as he described it, as well as a physical one. However, he wanted to celebrate this manly love with maximum discretion, and certainly not in public. He wrote: “What two men do in the barracks,” by which he meant the barracks of the Nazi Party militia, “is no one’s business.”

Such complaints were not limited to the far right. Moderate activists had their own doubts about the bars and dance halls. One leader of transvestites warned, “When we demand that the public acknowledge us, then we have the duty to dress and conduct ourselves publicly in an inconspicuous manner.” Transvestites were told to avoid gaudy accessories like costume rings or oversized earrings.

To admit that one was homosexual or a transvestite in public in the 1920s was to court serious social and legal consequences. Activists of that era probably could not have imagined that one day people would march in large groups down public streets celebrating their homosexual and transgender selves.

‘We’re here, we’re queer’ In 1970, activists organized the first pride marches to mark the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall riots. Those riots occurred the summer before when people fought back against a police raid of a queer bar called the Stonewall Inn in New York’s Greenwich Village.

Pride exploded the old worries about discretion when it arrived in cities around the world in the 1970s.

Pride reveled in gaudy accessories. It had lots of scanty dress, too, from drag queens in slinky gowns to shirtless dykes with political slogans scrawled in marker across their chests. By bringing the party – along with the politics – into the streets in broad daylight, pride fought against homophobia. At the same time, it flatly rejected the old fears about overt public displays.

“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” a favorite chant at pride, was not only directed at mainstream, straight society. It was also, in my opinion, an answer-back to the debate about discretion that had marked the long history of gay and trans activism.

More debates about pride

By the 1990s, pride marches had run into more controversy within activist circles. They were criticized as too commercial, too male-dominated, too devoid of a broader left-of-center political agenda and insufficiently inclusive of people of color – or indeed downright racist and Islamophobic. Alternative demonstrations cropped up, like Berlin’s Alternative Pride and New York City’s Dyke March. Debates about pride continue to this day.

Pride is in part what people make of it. A pride march can have a social justice agenda. Or it can have a pro-Trump agenda.

Yet pride’s history is a story of a radical break with right-wing and even middle-of-the-road gay and trans politics. Pride rejected respectability and discretion.

Traces of that history probably survive in your local pride march. Look for the people who are not worried about alarming the straights.

]]>

[nothorses]

heyy! first of all i hope you're doing well. thank you for taking the time out to read and respond to this (if you choose to). this has been bothering me for a while and i'd like your opinion on it.

i read these two articles recently - the first one is about a lesbian professor of gender studies + sexuality arguing why women should be allowed to "hate men"; the second is an interview with her about the article in which she addresses some of the negative responses she got to that article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html

https://outline.com/ttKscw

i have a lot of questions about this.

firstly, i cannot tell whether this is the sort of reductionist, radfemmy, "fuck all men" feminist you've been talking about. i understand her sentiments but i disagree with her statement, and i want to get better at identifying shallow feminism. i don't think my personal opinion is credible enough (yet) to draw any conclusions right off the bat. are there any 'tells' or signs that indicate what sort of feminism someone is speaking about (in the same way that there are certain idenitifiers of TERF ideology even when it is not explicitly mentioned)? for example, in the interview, she explicitly says "Where is discrimination? Where are men being excluded? Where are men being abused? Oh, come on." as well as her implied praise of kamala harris as 'the feminist we need in office'. are those things indicators of whether her position on feminism is credible/an appropriate portrayal of how Feminism™ should function? in short, do i take this woman entirely seriously about all this?

secondly, how do you feel about gender being a social construct, as she states? does that not contradict the very real physical dysphoria that a lot of us experience? doesn't it invalidate almost all the experiences of struggle against transphobia and cissexism, as well as our identities, by painting gender identity as 'not a big deal' or 'fake' by virtue of being a social construct? also, is gender identity not influenced by biology to some extent?

thirdly, along a similar vein, how do you feel about gender abolitionism? i don't exactly have a v specific question about this one, i just want another trans person's opinion on how that sort of society would affect them. i do not wish to be stripped of my identity, and i am opposed to gender abolitionism because of that. is this sentiment a product of some misunderstanding i have?

if you have any other thoughts at all about the articles, i'd love to hear those. thank you!

Oooh, anon, these are such good questions.

Why Can’t We Hate Men? by Suzanna Walters

Follow-Up Interview with Walters

Walters does a weird sort of dance in both articles: her argument is that “hating men” is okay and even good, but she has to completely misrepresent what “hating men” is, does, and means in order to make her point align with what she actually believes is defensible.

“Hating men” is not actually about hating men, she says; she doesn’t hate men at all, in fact. She knows they’re not the problem, but rather the systems of patriarchy in place. She knows racism and other intersections make “hating men” complicated at best, and harmful at worst. She just wants men to “lean back” and understand the power they hold; to be feminists. She thinks it’s a good thing to welcome men into feminism.

So then what the hell does “hating men” actually mean, to her? Why make that the hill to die on, if nothing in her argument has anything to do with that hill?

I don’t think she really believes any of the arguments she’s making in the first place. Walters pays lipservice to racism and intersectionality in a brief comment, then never brings it up again. Her view of feminist issues is narrow and shallow, dealing mostly with “the safety of women” and the representation of women in positions of power; both of which fail to address the structural issues of the patriarchy and how it functions, and prioritize Making Women Powerful over dismantling the systems of oppression giving people power over each other in the first place. She believes that all men are universally and inherently benefiting from the patriarchy, and that men in fact are the system to be fought.

Some of this pings as TERFy, too. Walters never really argues against radical feminism. Her argument against gender-essentialism is, as you said, that gender shouldn’t exist at all- but she claims the patriarchy discriminates based on genitalia.

You caught that as well; “where are men being oppressed/abused?” she says, after her performative gesture toward intersectionality. Walters also compares the oppression of women to racism at the same time, which... holy shit.

I’d personally peg her as a mainstream liberal feminist. She’s a successful white professor who sincerely believes that her experiences as a woman are universal. Her takes are surface-level and shallow at best, and edging dangerously close to radical feminism and quiet TERFism at worst.

TL;DR: The Author

She’s a mainstream liberal feminist who makes a string of confused, contradicting arguments because she chose to die on a hill she doesn’t really understand. Her arguments stray TERFy and racist on multiple occasions.

RE: Gender questions

What gender is and where it comes from is a complicated question, and I don’t think there’s a simple answer to it. The major arguments are that it’s social, biological, or psychological; either it comes from how you’re socialized, what your genitals look like, or it’s something built into your brain chemistry (think “wrong body” trans theory).

I personally think it’s a bit of a mix, leaning toward the social and psychological, and that where gender “comes from” is a little different for each individual. Biology has a bit to do with it; we’ve had somewhat consistent ideas "man” and “woman” across various cultures.

But what gender means in each society is different, and how people conceptualize it has been different. What gender someone feels they are may be influences by their culture’s gender expectations. Some indigenous cultures even have anywhere from two to five distinct “genders”, and I can say personally that my conceptualization of my own gender relies pretty heavily on how other people perceive and treat me.

Not to mention that trans people have existed for as long as people in general have, even in societies that lack any formal gender concept for trans folks. So psychology must play a role, too.

So if we strip away all social expectations of gender, we’re still left with psychological and biological influences on gender. Which is part of why I don’t think we can abolish gender to begin with; people will always have internal understandings of gender to some extent, and they’ll always express them, and therefore there will always be a social element to gender. We can, however, work toward abolishing restrictive, binaristic, oppressive gender structures that limit and punish expressions of gender.

And as a sidenote, the whole “gender is just a social construct, but genitals are real” and “we should abolish all concept of gender” thing is extremely TERFy. There are thoughtful and trans-inclusive ways of approaching the question, but usually we’re talking about gender as part of a system of power and oppression. Walters is using the TERF framework that their “gender critical” comes from: gender isn’t real, therefore trans people aren’t real. Patriarchy is just based on biological realities and sex, and we should abolish the idea of gender (as code for abolishing trans rights and theory).

TL;DR: Gender

I personally believe that gender is a synthesis of biological, psychological, and social influences that is highly unique to every individual. There’s no real way to “abolish” it, only systems of power and oppression that rely on and enforce it. Walters’ way of discussing it is extremely TERFy, and her arguments should be heavily scrutinized.

[matteorossini]

A reprehensible witch hunt in academia: feminist philosopher equates the defenses of transgenderism and of transracialism—and gets crucified

Gender is widely agreed by the Left to be a social construct, not a biological reality. If that’s the case, why isn’t race? Why was someone like Rachel Dolezal, who was white but claimed to be black, vilified and fired from her job as the Spokane, Washington head of the NAACP, while a man who claims to be a woman (or vice versa) is defended and her courage lauded? The distinction has always baffled me, especially because race is also seen to be a social construct.

Those were the questions asked in an article recently published in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia by Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. Her piece is called “In defense of transracialism“, and is free online (reference and link below).  I have only skimmed the full piece, but it’s dissected by Jesse Singal at New York Magazine’s “Intelligencer column” “This is what a modern-day witch hunt looks like.” And indeed, merely for pointing out that the arguments used to support transgender rights are similar to those that could be used to support transracial rights, Tuvel has been excoriated by academics, and the journal asked to retract the article. She has received a ton of hate mail. It is truly a Leftist witch hunt—a purity test that Tuvel apparently failed big time.

First, the abstract and first footnote in Tuvel’s paper:

And her concluding paragraph:

Haslanger writes, “rather than worrying, ‘what is gender, really?’ or ‘what is race, really?’ I think we should begin by asking (both in the theoretical and political sense) what, if anything, we want them to be” (Haslanger 2012, 246). I have taken it as my task in this article to argue that a just society should reconsider what we owe individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with another race, and accordingly what we want race to be. I hope to have shown that, insofar as similar arguments that render transgenderism acceptable extend to transracialism, we have reason to allow racial self-identification, coupled with racial social treatment, to play a greater role in the determination of race than has previously been recognized. I conclude that society should accept such an individual’s decision to change race the same way it should accept an individual’s decision to change sex.

For this she is being crucified in public by her fellow academics, who accused her of not only being transphobic (not true at all), but perpetrating tangible harm and even violence on both the black and trans communities (another lie).

Part of Singal’s analysis:

Tuvel structures her argument more or less as follows: (1) We accept the following premises about trans people and the rights and dignity to which they are entitled; (2) we also accept the following premises about identities and identity change in general; (3) therefore, the common arguments against transracialism fail, and we should accept that there’s little apparent logically coherent reason to deny the possibility of genuine transracialism.

Anyone who has read an academic philosophy paper will be familiar with this sort of argument. The goal, often, is to provoke a little — to probe what we think and why we think it, and to highlight logical inconsistencies that might help us better understand our values and thought processes. This sort of article is abstract and laden with hypotheticals — the idea is to pull up one level from the real world and force people to grapple with principles and claims on their own merits, rather than — in the case of Dolezal — baser instincts like disgust and outrage. This is what many philosophers do.

Tuvel’s article rebuts a number of the arguments against transracialism, and it’s clear, throughout, that Tuvel herself is firmly in support of trans people and trans rights. Her argument is not that being transracial is the same as being transgender — rather, it’s “that similar arguments that support transgenderism support transracialism,” as she puts it in an important endnote we’ll return to. It’s clear, from the way Tuvel sets things up, that she’s prodding us to more carefully examine why we feel the way we do about Dolezal, not to question trans rights or trans identities.

Usually, an article like this, abstract and argumentatively complex as it is, wouldn’t attract all that much attention outside of its own academic subculture. But that isn’t what happened here — instead, Tuvel is now bearing the brunt of a massive internet witch-hunt, abetted in part by Hypatia’s refusal to stand up for her. The journal has already apologized for the article, despite the fact that it was approved through its normal editorial process, and Tuvel’s peers are busily wrecking her reputation by sharing all sorts of false claims about the article that don’t bear the scrutiny of even a single close read.

The biggest vehicle of misinformation about Tuvel’s articles comes from the “open letter to Hypatia” that has done a great deal to help spark the controversy. That letter has racked up hundreds of signatories within the academic community — the top names listed are Elise Springer of Wesleyan University, Alexis Shotwell of Carleton University (who is listed as the point of contact), Dilek Huseyinzadegan of Emory University, Lori Gruen of Wesleyan, and Shannon Winnubst of Ohio State University. (Update: As of the morning of May 3, all the names had been removed from the letter. A note at the top of it reads “We have now closed signatories for this letter in order to send it to the Editor and Associate Editors of Hypatia.”)

In the letter, the authors ask that the article be retracted on the grounds that its “continued availability causes further harm” to marginalized people. The authors then list five main reasons they think the article is so dangerously flawed it should be unpublished. . .

Singal goes on to point out that four five of those reasons are based on a total misreading of Tuvel’s article, whose main point is given above and by Singal in his second and third paragraph. (The other criticism is trivial.) He then rebuts each of the “reasons,” and goes on to show how Tuvel is being ripped to shreds, unjustly, by academics. She has even been accused of “perpetrating violence” and “enacting harm”

The letter’s authors, presumably Leftists, are doing all they can do demonize Tuvel for–what? None of the objections recognize that the transgenderism and transracialism are both based on people feeling that they’re different from how their external appearance has led society to categorize them. One is based on genitalia, the other skin color.  If a biological male feels that he is really a woman, why can’t a white person feel that they’re black? And regardless of which sex is “privileged,” people transition in both directions. But of course never underestimate Regressives’ tendency to reach a conclusion first (“white people have privilege and just can’t say they feel or are black”) and then find arguments to support it.

Singal concludes:

I could go on and on. This is a witch hunt. There has simply been an explosive amount of misinformation circulating online about what is and isn’t in Tuvel’s article, which few of her most vociferous critics appear to have even skimmed, based on their inability to accurately describe its contents. Because the right has seized on Rachel Dolezal as a target of gleeful ridicule, and as a means of making opportunistic arguments against the reality of the trans identity, a bunch of academics who really should know better are attributing to Tuvel arguments she never made, simply because she connected those two subjects in an academic article.

The Chronicle of Higher Education shows how the craven journal Hypatia apologized (you can see the journal’s reprehensible Facebook apology here, but I want to reproduce it because it so resembles the apologies of the accused during China’s Cultural Revolution:

From the Chronicle:

The article, ”In Defense of Transracialism,” by Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College, drew a significant backlash following its publication, in late March. The article discusses public perceptions of racial and gender transitions by comparing the former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s desire to be seen as black with the celebrity Caitlyn Jenner’s public transition from male to female. [JAC: the article does far more than just draw a parallel!]

Since a backlash erupted on social media, more than 400 academics have signed an open letter to the editor of Hypatia calling for the article to be retracted. “Our concerns reach beyond mere scholarly disagreement; we can only conclude that there has been a failure in the review process, and one that painfully reflects a lack of engagement beyond white and cisgender privilege,” the letter says.

The journal’s Facebook apology responded to those concerns by saying that it would be looking closely at its editorial processes to make sure they are more inclusive of transfeminists and feminists of color, whom the journal said had been particularly harmed by the article. The journal also apologized for its initial response to the backlash, saying that an earlier Facebook post had “also caused harm, primarily by characterizing the outrage that met the article’s publication as mere ‘dialogue’ that the article was ‘sparking.’ We want to state clearly that we regret that the post was made.”

Tuvel has responded to the criticism (see here), apologizes for one or two items, like “deadnaming” Caitlyn Jenner (giving her pre-transition name), but ends in this way:

Calls for intellectual engagement are also being shut down because they “dignify” the article. If this is considered beyond the pale as a response to a controversial piece of writing, then critical thought is in danger. I have never been under the illusion that this article is immune from critique. But the last place one expects to find such calls for censorship rather than discussion is amongst philosophers.

Indeed. Philosopher Russell Blackford has been defending Tuvel on Twitter and criticizing the witch hunt in a series of tweets, calling attention to others’ defenses of Tuvel. I am proud to call him my friend. Read the following from bottom up, in chronological order:

And Yale’s Paul Bloom, Ceiling Cat bless him, has also defended Tuvel:

A bizarre and ugly attack by a group of philosophers directed toward a junior prof. https://t.co/gvbEr6rE2v

— Paul Bloom (@paulbloomatyale) May 2, 2017

Hypatia should be mocked and vilified for its cowardice, as should those academics who went after tuvel because her Gendankenartikel violated the Regressive Left’s norms of purity. These are not students attacking Tuvel—they are professional academics, and I have nothing but contempt for them. (Remember, today’s students are tomorrow’s professors.) I am appalled, but not surprised. I’ll end with Singal’s words:

. . . what’s disturbing here is how many hundreds of academics signed onto and helped spread utterly false claims about one of their colleagues, and the extent to which Hypatia, faced with such outrage, didn’t even bother trying to sift legitimate critiques from frankly made-up ones. A huge number of people who haven’t read Tuvel’s article now believe, on the basis of that trumped-up open letter and unfounded claims of “violence,” that it is so deeply transphobic it warranted an unusual apology from the journal that published it.

We should want academics to write about complicated, difficult, hot-button issues, including identity. Online pile-ons cannot, however righteous they feel, dictate journals’ publication policies and how they treat their authors and articles. It’s really disturbing to watch this sort of thing unfold in real time — there’s such a stark disconnect between what Tuvel wrote and what she is purported to have written. This whole episode should worry anybody who cares about academia’s ability to engage in difficult issues at a time when outrage can spread faster than ever before.

h/t: Grania

______

Tuvel. R. 2017. In defense of transracialism. Hypatia 32:263-278, DOI: 10.1111/hypa.12327

from Why Evolution Is True http://ift.tt/2qFHnTW via IFTTT