#and talking about them doesn't mean you ignore the existence of other groups of women

[ventbloglite]

I think we need to sit down and talk about malgendering.

Not misgendering, malgendering.

We all know what misgendering means. Misgendering is when a trans person (or to be honest, even a cis person) has their gender denied to them in some fashion by implying, suggesting or outright stating that their gender is actually Something Else and not the one they identify as.

e.g. A trans woman being told she cannot attend a certain class because it's 'just for women'.

Malgendering is when the trans persons gender is not questioned or denied and may even be affirmed - but only in a context in which it can be used against them in some fashion (to make judgements on them as a person, to exclude them from something, to incite bigotry towards them etc).

e.g. That same trans woman taking her shirt off on a hot day and being arrested for indecent exposure.

This is misgendering;- "You're not a woman, you're a man." This is malgendering;- "Trans women are women, so obviously they exist to serve men."* *obvs it is also transmisogyny and all malgendering is transphobia.

But what you don't want to hear is that malgendering is a form of transphobia mainly used against trans masculine people and nonbinary people.

Most people recognise malgendering when it's;

Using the term 'theyfab' to ridicule an agender person or making jokes about how an agender they/them user looks (to you) to be a completely cis woman.

But you need to look out for how;

Malgendering is treating trans men like their transition has turned them into women-hating predators because of your own predjudices towards men/trans man were always inherently women-hating predators because maleness is what makes you those things not your actual thoughts, words and actions.

Malgendering is not listening to how trans masc people are marginalised 'because men aren't oppressed though' as if that's not ignoring a huge part of their identity (the being trans part) and how that works.

Malgendering is telling trans men 'this is just what it's like to be a man, people treat you like shit and you have to take it or not transition'.

Malgendering is insisting that any trans man who calls any attention to the fact that he is indeed, trans, and has/had female anatomy and faces misogyny due to being raised and still perceived (by transphobes) as a woman is misgendering himself, all other trans men and 'weaponising his AFABness'

All of this is transphobia. All of this is bigotry. This kind of predjudice and bullying doesn't magically become 'OK' once you find the 'right' group to do it to. You either want to end bigotry and transphobia and identity-specific targetted hate or you want to perpetuate it. But you can't call yourself a trans ally, or escape the bigotry allegations whilst malgendering people. And no you're not being sneaky by slipping in your hateful predjudice comments and actions whilst validating their gender.

Malgendering is transphobia.

[foone]

I want a human zoology textbook.

Zoology, as in the study of animals. Like, a study of how humans work, done by an author that is not human.

I specifically want this for a couple reasons:

1. Descriptive, not prescriptive: don't tell me what the author thinks humans should do or how they should be. Tell me what they do. Observationally!

2. No bias towards "nature". I don't particularly care what the author is imagining humans are like in some "garden of eden" unfallen state. I want it to reference how humans ARE.

3. No morality applied to this! What do humans DO, not what you think they should do, or how they should be. And most importantly, no self-censorship in order to avoid offending some of the humans that disagree with ways people live.

And the reason I want this is because of how biology textbooks/wiki pages get written, where even if they try to be progressive they're still written from this weird perspective where they're explaining based on old ideas and the progressive stuff gets a footnote.

Like it'll be "humans have two genders, male and female. This is determined from their chromosomes, XY for male and xx for female."

And then you scroll past two pages for men and another two pages for women, and then it has one subsection that covers non-binary people and intersex people. And it's like: well then integrate that into your main statement!

It's like the author's worldview is still "there's two genders and everyone is born as one" but they've been forced to accept there are some weird exceptions but the core worldview is unchanged. And it's understandable! Wrong, but understandable: the grew up in a world that is quite strong on the "there are only two genders" ideology and doesn't like to remember that intersex people exist.

But like, imagine if you tried to do this as a zoologist. You're like "hey, all bees are female!" and then someone points out the rare male drones and they're like "oh okay I'll update my zoology textbook."

And now it reads:

All bees are female. Most are workers, and one is the queen.

(a couple sections go pass)

Drones: recent science has discovered that some bees are born male. These rare exceptions live short lives where they fertilize a queen and then die.

And it's like, no? Drones are very important to how a hive lives and they can't survive without them?

And we're constantly doing the same thing to humans and it's just bad science. Like, sure, maybe you could have the theory that "humans come in two genders: male and female" but as soon as you see one non-binary person, you have to discard that theory: it has been proven false! It's like not believing in other galaxies after Henrietta Swan Leavitt figured out how Cepheid Variables worked.

Add to that the "nature" thing. Like, you can make a sort of argument about nature vs artificial settings for a lot of species: the whole alpha/beta wolf thing came about because it turns out wolves act differently in captivity compared to the wild, so it makes sense to study how the vast majority of wolves live, not a small group you stuffed into a small area with unusual conditions. It's like saying the lifespan of goldfish is under 5 minutes, based on your study of them in this dry box you put them in.

But humans are different: we are tool-users who build new environments for ourselves. And while you can talk about how humans living in different environments act differently, it doesn't make a lot of sense to call one of them "artificial". All of them are made by us, and humans always do this. This means all environments are natural (because building environments for ourselves is what we naturally do) and all environments are artificial: we always alter our environments to better suit us! That's one of the things we naturally do!

And as for morality, it's about not ignoring things humans do regularly because you think it's weird or you think they shouldn't.

Like that tweet where someone pointed out that lots of species can change gender. Clown fish are a big one, some frogs, a couple birds, some lizards, and humans.

And people often have an immediate knee-jerk reaction of "that doesn't count!" for the last entity in that list. Why? Because we do it (usually) with clothes and makeup and medication, instead of just "naturally"? Bullshit. We're naturally TOOL USERS. Of course we use tools to change gender. We use tools to do EVERYTHING. That's natural for us.

So yeah. I think it'd be refreshing and enlightening to have a zoology textbook written about humans with this detached non-human perspective. An unbiased description of what humans are and do, rather than one irrevocably tinged with ideas of what humans should be and should do.

Basically I want to load up Vulcan Wikipedia and check the "Humans" article.

[marzipanandminutiae]

The Snark Is Real This Morning

Oh no! Some patriarchal shill just had an Illegal Corset Thought on the Internet!

Maybe they said "corsets weren't invented by the patriarchy" or "comfort was actually often a prime concern for most women's day-to-day corset-wearing, as evidenced by mid-late 19th century advertising" or "women didn't go around fainting constantly because most of them didn't tightlace most of the time."

Maybe they brought up "survivorship bias in extant clothing" or "rampant photo doctoring in the 19th/early 20th century" or "treating satirical cartoons and fashion plates as gospel" or "museums displaying corsets laced entirely closed when wear patterns and primary sources indicate that lacing gaps were more common in many times and places" These concepts are actually conspiracies invented by Big Misogyny to sell more booze to depressed history workers!

Maybe one of them said that she'd worn corsets, or even that she and/or her friends actually found them more comfortable than bras! Clearly she believes this is representative of all women throughout history and in the present day. Besides, she is suffering from Femininity Poisoning and nothing coming out of her silly, weak little brain can be taken seriously. Remember, it is Peak Feminism to dismiss what a woman says because of her gender presentation!

Don't be fooled! All of these statements mean one thing: they are saying that corsets were and are, always and forever, universally feminist and empowering. That no woman in the past ever found them uncomfortable, and that GNC women didn't exist before 1960 and also are icky. Did they actually say that? Doesn't matter! You know what she Really Meant- you've seen P*rates of the Caribbean and Br*dgerton! Corsets were always torture devices meant to oppress women, and any statement contradicting that clearly means the extreme opposite.

So what's a right-thinking and concerned Internet Citizen to do? You have a few options:

See point above re: femininity. Feminine-presenting women are basically brainless, so if a woman talking about dress history Wears An Skirt, you can just write off whatever she says. Easy peasy! Be sure to say something derogatory about her appearance, so others know why they shouldn't take her seriously.

Accuse them of not knowing their history. Any degrees, professional experience, publications, academic accolades, etc. they may have are irrelevant. Their primary sources are...idk photoshopped or something? Best to ignore them altogether. You have Feelings on your side, and that's far more valuable than any research!

Accuse them of accusing you of being a t*rf. Works especially well if they've said anything about the preponderance of t*rfs expressing your True and Correct views- that just means they're calling everyone who thinks like you a transphobe, duh!

Tell them they're not believing women. If they have cited so-called "realities of historical women's lives," well, that's clearly just the rich elite of any given era (who were also brainrotted by Femininity, natch). If you're a woman, and you say corsets were the spawn of Beelzebub, that should be enough ~evidence~ for anyone!

Appeal to common knowledge. Everyone KNOWS corsets were evil; can they really be DEFENDING a KNOWN HATEFUL OPPRESSIVE HELL-GARMENT?! What is the world coming to! If they ask how exactly everyone knows that and where that collective belief comes from, reply with a snarky GIF and block them. There's just no reasoning with some people.

Call them a tradwife. Are they a tradwife? Irrelevant.

With all these tools in your arsenal, you are now well-equipped to fight the horde of vile corset apologists online. Remember: It's Only Real Oppression If The Oppressed Group Is Miserable 24/7!

[decolonize-the-everything]

it's not accurate to act like the feminist movement in rok is free of terfs/only has incidental issues with transmisogyny. there's rampant transmisogyny in rok feminism. there's not a lot of english-language scholarship about it, but look up the kind of rhetoric and policy that was on sites like megalia/WOMAD, or the trans woman who was accepted to a women's university but got harrassed into withdrawing by terfs/conservatives in 2020. i'm sure you mean well but your post is irresponsibly misleading about the content and ideology of current-day korean feminism

I never said RoK doesn't have TERFs or a widespread radfem problem.

We in the USA have them and depending on where you are a transwoman might get the same treatment. There have been 538 pieces of anti-trans legislation presented in the USA this year alone. Florida specifically is turning into a straight up anti-trans fascist state.

TERF/radfem ideology is gaining ground in the USA and theyve actually been the people pushing a lot of these bills through with supporters like the heritage foundation. For example:

Several other states are starting to follow suit now that they see whats possible. US progress is deeply turning backwards. This is largely being allowed to happen by a public who isn't fighting back. The only people really talking about any of this is in fact trans people or the people close to them.

That said, radfems and such shouldn't be made out to be the face of feminism.

They're not and I would never say they are because there are Actual feminists fighting against them and trying to stop them from co-opting feminism.

Radfeminism is gaining ground, sure, but I'd still never say that it's representative of US feminism or even feminism really.

Feminism is about gender equality. TERFs/Radfeminism is about gender separatism, defining women by their sexual ability, and catering to patriarchal views of gender as a "rebellion" against actual feminism. Ask a radefem what defines them and they'll say their uterus.

Does your ability to create babies for the patriarchy define you as a woman? Of course not.. especially when feminists have been seeking to destroy that idea.

How can you be feminist and fundamentally disagree with it's premise?

It's more like anti-feminsim than anything else. Especially when we consider that feminists have fought generations to be defined by more than their sex, that the genders are equal and have equal abilities, that women have a Right to be in spaces considered for men, and try so hard to fight against the way that patriarchy defines women as maids, wives, and breeders who should be pretty and thin.

Anyone who steps outside that definition should be celebrated as a success story. Proof that the gender binary is bigger and more complicated than believed. Proof that women and womenhood are too expansive and too complex to be limited by such a small minded definition.

That to say.... Just because it's a massive problem...doesn't mean that radfems are the face of feminism. And saying that doesn't mean I'm ignoring their existence either.

I just wouldn't ever ever validate them successfully co-opting feminism. And I wouldn't Let them have it either by saying "well I guess there's so many radfems in this movement that I guess it's their's now" either.

All this to say, I'm aware. It was actually kinda difficult to find resources on the 4b movement that weren't transphobic.

The point is fighting patriarchy tho right? That means fighting transphobia. And since there ARE Korean women and other people doing that and talking about it, I'm going to focus on progress. Not whatever the fuck radfems are doing.

And I'm going to trust that as feminism makes more strides in gender equality that the groups of radfems will shrink. And that are more people will see radfems/TERFs less and less like feminists and more and more like the Patriarchy Preservers they are.

[this-is-exorsexism]

When binary trans people deny the oppression of nonbinary people or say something exorsexist, and then defend it by saying "I'm a little bit nonbinary!" I'm all for people realizing where exactly they fall on the gender spectrum, and nonbinary people don't have to be gender-neutral or perfectly androgynous to be valid, but these people will identify as 100% a man or woman, live as a trans man or woman, and call themselves only a trans man or trans woman, until it's time to talk over nonbinary people about their oppression, and then suddenly they're all nonbinary and thus the #1 authority on exorsexism and how it totally doesn't exist or affect people as badly as transmisogyny or anti-transmasculinity does.

this is exorsexism.

ugh, yeah. these are usually the same people who say "everyone is nonbinary" or "actually, binary trans womanhood is the OG nonbinary gender" (this is an actual take i've seen) too when called out for exorsexism. it's because they see nonbinary as synonymous with breaking gender roles or even just disliking gender roles (which is also a TERF talking point - to them nonbinary people are just GNC men and women), or that it's the same as not being your AGAB (we already have a word for this: transgender) or that it's simply not liking the idea that there are only two genders.

and regarding the latter: i wish people actually understood that not liking the idea that there are only two genders isn't what makes you nonbinary, because being nonbinary is not an ideology. if you're strictly male or female and you don't like the gender binary, you're an ally and we need more allies! but as you said, these are often people who are invested in upholding the gender binary but say they are nonbinary when called out for it.

and it's not my job to decide for them whether they are nonbinary or not - after all, womanhood and manhood don't inherently mean binary, nonbinary men and women don't owe anyone the "full explanation" of their gender, and the idea of "nonbinary people weaponising their gender and coming out at such convenient times" is way too prevalent. at the same time, completely ignoring what nonbinary means and pulling the "everyone's a little nonbinary" bit is harmful.

but also, being nonbinary does not absolve you from exorsexism. this is true for people who just said they are nonbinary 5 minutes ago as well as for nonbinary people who have been out for years. bringing up your own nonbinary gender doesn't make your exorsexism go away. you can actually be part of a group and still be bigoted towards your own group. your identity is not a shield.

as i said, after all a lot of nonbinary people are very invested in exorsexism, which also disproves this idea that nonbinary is supposedly an ideology that is synonymous with disliking the gender binary.

it's valid for nonbinary people to be more affected by antitransmasculinity or antitransfemininity than exorsexism - but this experience is not universal and it doesn't make exorsexism less important or less oppressive. especially people whose experience is primarily defined by exorsexism are often talked over, a lot of the time even by other nonbinary people.

[doberbutts]

I also think- having recently seen a post that said Blue Eye Samurai isn't a queer story, it just has queer elements- that sometimes it feels like fans cannot make up their minds.

Do we or do we not want stories that treat being gay as a perfectly normal, perfectly common experience the same way straight people are depicted in every story to ever exist?

In BES, no one is outright stated to be queer. That's partially because in Japan, until Japan felt the need to sanitize itself to appeal to foreigners, it wasn't unheard of at all for men to be gay. Multiple famous samurai and swordsmen and nobles were either outspokenly gay or are commonly theorized to have been gay in modern historical readings. Abijah making multiple references to swinging both ways, Kaji's offer of a male prostitute, the various scenes we have of men being together in sexual positions, they're not met with surprise because homosexuality was an acknowledged thing that happened.

Taigen's erection while he's wrestling Mizu, even though he doesn't yet know her secret, is treated awkwardly because they're supposed to dislike each other and also he's supposed to be in love with Akemi, not because "whoa bro no homo".

(This is also why I keep saying that it's difficult for me to put into English words what I think Mizu's gender is, because gender and sexuality quite frankly did not work the way my 2020s American brain wants to contextualize it, and I think it's important to consider the cultural aspects here esp in a show so heavily leaning on a racial story)

However, compared to many other shows out there even regarding the same area and country, BES is significantly more queer than the majority of them produced in the last 30 years. Is Mizu herself queer? Well... maybe, depending how you define it. Back in the day, otherwise cisgender crossdressers and male-impersonators were still grouped in with those we'd call transgender nowadays. She seems to be exclusively interested in men, but also seems to be equally receptive to considering herself sexually as both a man and a woman pairing with men, than as a man or woman pairing with women which she has adamantly refused with zero interest on multiple occasions.

Is Taigen bi? I mean, maybe! He seemed more mortified that he had an unwanted erection in front of someone he wanted to impress and play with, than that he had it over someone he considers a man, using the excuse that he misses his would-be fiance.

Abijah certainly seems to be bisexual, considering we see him having sex with both women and men, and his various sexual references talk about both men and women as well. This is ignoring whatever weird sexual tension thing he's got going with Heiji, who seems both receptive and repulsed by it.

And, not to be remiss, but there is a reason I specified that homosexuality among men was pretty known. Due to the more rigid policing of women's sexuality in this era, homosexuality among women was less commonly reported (though I have heard stories of noble women and their handmaids, or the working poor women, or among prostitutes living together in the brothels, so also not unheard of but perhaps less accepted as women were largely bought and sold in marriage and sex trafficking) - but even with all of that, Kaji and Kinuyo have something together. Whether that is a mother-daughter thing, or if they were lovers, is up to interpretation. The implication that out of everyone at the brothel that Kaji genuinely cares for, Kinuyo was special, and that wasn't a particularly uncommon arrangement historically if I'm hearing about it 400 years later in a completely different country.

So this "well it's not a queer show" and "if I was told this was a queer story I'd be disappointed" is honestly just ridiculous hooey to me. Do you want characters who are able to explore their sexualities without looking over their shoulder out of fear of homophobia, or not?

[hello-nichya-here]

Pffft in what fucking way radical feminism is about apologizing abuse?? xD

Hun if you have no what you're talking about just don't talk about it, don't embarrass yourself

Glad you asked!

First we have this very thing that you're doing right now, which is shutting down anyone who mentions that radfems can be abusers. Major red flag whenever someone's first reaction to hearing "Someone in your group has been abusive" is to immediately get all defensive and say "NO ONE HERE WOULD EVER!"

Secondly, we have the very thing that made me point out that radfems are abusive as hell. I pointed out that a stupid radfem was insisting that I was being abused because I like kinky stuff, and then had the nerve to go "You deserve to be beaten until you get brain damage." Saying that some people just "deserve" to be mistreated is abuse apologism 101.

And since we're talking about people who "deserve" abuse according to radfems, let's look at the list of women you guys have thrown under the bus:

1 - Women who have been abused by other women. After all, "rape is a male crime" according to you guys.

2 - Women of color. You guys always get hella defensive whenever a non-white woman points out that radfems are often racist as fuck, and pull stuff like basing their list of "how to spot a tranny" on racist shit like literal nazi propaganda posters to help people "spot jews." And let's not forget the large overlap between plenty of radfem groups and white supremacy groups. Oh, sorry, forgot we're not supposed to mention all that so we won't "devide the comunity."

3 - Bisexuals who experienced abuse by a male partner, since we "choose" to associate with men despite having the oppornuity to date just women, like lesbians do (What? That sounds just like incels who are mad women only go to "jerks" instead of "nice guys" like themselves? Impossible! That would mean radfems feel entitled to sex and believe women DON'T get to say no!)

4 - Lesbians that are not "gold star lesbians", aka who have had sex with men at some point. After all, they're inferior since they didn't have stuff figured out right away, or had no choice but to stay in the closet for years and years due to where they live, or, ya know, were raped. Too bad for them, they were touched by man, therefore they're icky.

5 - Asexuals, because you guys will just hate one ANYONE apparently, even someone who just says "I don't really wanna fuck anyone".

6 - Trans women. After all, you guys literally admited that you made up the whole "predatory trans in the bathroom" myth just to have an excuse to hate on them. And let's not forget this also led to shit like radfems trying to spy on other women in the bathroom to "make sure they're really women." After all, trying to see someone naked without their consent is totally what normal, not at all creepy people do.

7 - Kinky women! After all, we are brainwashed by the patriarchy, and need you guys to step in and save us from ourselves, because YOU know what makes US comfortable or not. It's for our own good really. It totally isn't just slut shaming with some pseudo-feminist terms thrown in the middle.

8 - Sex workers. Once again, they need to be saved from themselves - and that rescue includes ignoring them when they say "your way of helping us in dehumanizing, robs us of our agency, and often ends with us being thrown in prison." And lets not forget that some of the anti sex-work laws you guys swear exist to protect victims of human trafficking who were forced into prostitution often end with said victims thrown in prison anyway because surprise surprise, demonizing people for harmless shit makes a target no matter what.

9 - Any woman who doesn't like that you bitches are constantly associating with the alt-right - including the most violently misogynistic members of the bunch - just to get more political allies. Does it ever cross your mind that if THE biggest women-hating scumbags around think you are "one of the good ones" that shows you totally fucking failed to "rebel against the patriarchy"?

And there's also the group that you guys refuse the acknowledge the most! Men who were abused by women. After all, that doesn't work in your fantasy world where men always hold all the power in every situation, and women are always powerless. No way things could be more complicated, even with misogyny still sadly being a thing, no, no. It has to be an Us VS Them.

So, no acknowledging all the times young boys get sexually assault and are mocked for "complaining that they got laid", even when they're minors and their abusers were grown adults. No acknowledging that while women are more likely to be victims to domestic violence, people often refuse to understand that men can also victims of intimate partner violence - even if said partner is a woman. We can talk about abusive fathers, but not abusive mothers. We can talk about how abusive males tend to become cops, but not about how abusive women tend to become nurses.

And, once again, not ever, ever, ever pointing out that radfems are ALWAYS going on about how some people (in this case men) DESERVE to abused. After all, that will totally make it "fair" after all the shit women endured, since THIS is the way to deal with society's problems: you make sure they hurt as many people as possible instead of just your group.

So yeah, you guys are abuse apologists. You always have been. Now either become a decent person or die mad about it, bitch.

[hard--headed--woman]

I'm Indian and I used to be a radfem, like actively in wombyn's meets and donating to women only shelters for a few years. What changed my mind was that I found, for a radical position, many radfems were racist by omitting any conversation about it. I don't think all radfems are racist but there is an issue of them wanting to focus on "womanhood" as the bigger picture and completely ignoring the racism other women face because they think it's a separate issue. I understand misogyny affects every woman but it's wrong for so many of them to silence conversations about racism as if woc don't face both often at the same time in its own way. And overall it still holds true that woc face more ill effects from society, a lot of white radfems just don't want to accept that they could have any perceived power over anyone. It doesn't mean they're the same as men but they do not notice how the racist misogynist systems against woc are still perpetuated because they refuse to speak out on it or acknowledge the benefits they get from it.

I agree with absolutely everything you've said. Many radfems are deeply racist, hold racist views or are racist, as you said, by refusing to talk about racism because they want to focus on women - which doesn't make sense because not only women of color exist and face racism, but you can acknowledge that all men are oppressors in a patriarchy while also understanding that men of color are oppressed because of racism and fighting against that. Women of color's freedom will exist when they are free from both sexism and racism, and for that we need to fighting sexism but also racism as a whole.

I think this comes from several reasons ;

- many white radfems just don't care about women of color and racism, and many of them literally hate them. it's a terrible thing to say but i have noticed so many racist bullshit. many of this can also be pure ignorance, as i have noticed that many people do not even try to understand racism issues and to learn about poc's experiences.

- radical feminists are often uncomfortable with the idea that they have a privilege and are part of an oppressor class. i have noticed this with opposite sex attracted radfems and white radfems. i remember when i think it was menalez (not sure) made a post about how she hated white women and many white radfems got angry, while they are the firsts to say that women have the right to hate men because men are our oppressors - and well, white people, including white women, also are the oppressors, aren't we ? so it should work that way too. it is not a radical feminism issue, just a white issue in general - the problem isn’t radical feminism but white people not being able to handle the fact that they're (we're) privileged.

- radical feminists are tired of libfems, TRAs and other people in general asking feminists to include everyone in their feminism because it's about EqUalItY and tHe PaTrIaRcHy HuRtS mEn ToO and what not, which i totally understand because i am tired of this shit too, but they react the wrong way. they understand that feminism is for females only but forget that different groups of women face different struggles, ex women of color face racism, and that we have to focus on these struggles and to fight different kind of oppressions if we want all females to be free - which means that feminism has to fight against different forms of misogyny (misogynoir, lesbophobia, etc) and to overlaps with other forms of activism, like anti racism activism, that will include men. it doesn't mean that our feminism include men. nuance.

I am a white woman so I might not be the best person to talk about this but I feel like you can acknowledge all of this while still being a radfem - tho I respect and understand women of color who leave radical feminism because of racism, of course. At the end of the day, the problem is (some) white radfems and their racism, not radical feminism in itself. You can still believe in the theory and doing activism while calling out racism in the community, or even focusing on women of color. You can still donate, talk about feminism, etc. Radical feminism actually needs more women talking about this to improve. I'm really not trying to lecture you, I hope that's not how it sounds! Just giving my opinion because I think it's an interesting topic.

Anyway, I just agree with everything you said and I understand why you did what you did.

[cepheusgalaxy]

PLEASE no bear or man discourse on my dash. This conversation doesn't really seem to be helping anyone.

On one side, we have a lot of (probably cis, idk, im assuming) woman who said they'd chose the bear.

And on the other side, a bunch of angry people.

Not to be like 'oh wah both sides are correct im neutral on this wadda wadda' but like. Men are people (i mean theres otherkin men too) and people are reasonable and bears are not reasonable and etc so logically it's way safer to chose the man wadda wadda but then I'd also like to point out how even if the other option is not very good logically speaking, a lot of people raised to be girls (like me, myself) grew up with this constant induced fear of Men. Dont go out alone, a Big Scary Man is gonna hurt you, don't be alone with a Man or else hes gonna hurt you, *scary statistics of violence towards women commited by Men shoved down your gut*, dont be alone with your Uncle because he might be Family but he is a Man and Men are not trustworthy and all etc. so you are in Danger. Just like. It wildly depends on the person you're talking about, but when we get there and generalize to the people being raised to be girls its very very Scary.

But I'd also like to point out how those views we learn as children are incredibly generalized and the group of people more likely to harm you are not "men", strictly speaking, but Privilegied People With Mote Power Than You, Incentived To Do Whatever They Want. One would think that emcompasses All Men, but then we completely ignore black men, men of color, poor men, disabled men, men with mental disorders (not the asshole in the News who got called a """""psychopath""""" again but the guy next door who is being dehumanized and ignored and demonized), trans men, queer men, etc etc. And so its our job, even if thats annoying or doesnt seem fair, to try and unlearn this bias we have and see things with clearer eyes, and be able to answer that this question is incredibly vague and it highly depends on the man or even the bear; oh maybe its a baby bear, oh maybe its my uncle Joe, oh maybe its Donald J Trump with a gun and im a minority, oh maybe—there are so many situations.

There are at least two sides on this debate, and I totally get where both are coming from. Distrust had been shoved down our (people raised to be girls) throats since childhood, and that view also conveniently serves to opress further men who are already being opressed (either you like it or not, interseccionality exists). The best thing to do would be to try and unlearn all that, and challenge the power structures that allow Some Privilegied People (because lets be honest these groups include a lot of people of all genders, because you can be both a privilegied + opressed person combo—because of interseccionality!—like a cis white gay person shoving a two-spirit/trans poc person under the bus, or a neurotypical black person shoving cluster a black people under the bus) to opress other groups.

*Not* asking random woman on the street if they prefer to be alone in a forest with a man or a bear, and then accusing them for repeating the views they've been raised with, which they did not took the legwork to unlearn.

[Image description: The "lets take ibuprofen together" meme, edited to say "lets unlearn harmful views together". /end ID.]

It's just—UGH

Sorry for the ramble. I'm gonna finish my homework now.

[multigenderswag]

people are only trans/nonbinary allies when it suits THEIR identity and it sickens me.

it’s so widespread I can’t even do anything about it except seethe in silence because I don’t want to get hunted down and embarrassed again.

if people could look outside of what accepting trans/nb people would mean for THEIR sexuality for one fucking second i guarantee you there would be less discourse in this dumpster fire of community

yes, this is about man lesbians/woman gays.

I saw someone call a demiboy lesbian “straight” and then have the audacity to say “nonbinary lesbians are valid!1!”. PICK A FUCKING SIDE.

hi yes last anon i forgot my last point so-called “trans allies” also like to ignore the idea of male and female not being mutually exclusive. I pray they get their asses handed to them one day by some fellow multigender folk because at this point direct confrontation is the only that that’ll get them to see the cold light of day and stop being part of the problem. they don’t like to accept us because they can’t handle the thought of being attracted to the opposite gender, even if it’s in the most slim way- so much so that they can’t see that *we’re not forcing them to DATE us, we’re asking them to ACCEPT and INCLUDE us.* if there’s someone in a community they don’t want to date it’s fine until that person happens to be genderqueer/trans/enby. and that’s very telling about how accepting they really are.

Trans liberation, and honestly any kind of activism for any marginalized group, would not be possible if people only ever stood up for their own identity. We need to support each other in order to have any strength.

Some people really will only expand their view of sexuality and gender until they find something that fits, and then stop there, and don't bother learning about or advocating for anyone else. And that's not how activism works! If aroallo people like me never made any effort to understand and accept and stand up for asexual folks, the aspec community as a whole wouldn't get very far. And like you said, if trans/nonbinary people only cared about their own gender identity, and never made an effort to learn about and stand up for the variety of trans/nonbinary identities that exist in the community, the trans community wouldn't get very far!

It's disgusting to insist that someone's sexuality is something they say it isn't. Did that demiboy identify as straight? If the answer to that is no, don't call them straight. It's very simple, really.

Did they not hear the contradiction? Do they listen to themselves speak? At this point, I'm convinced some of the "lesbian means NON MEN loving NON MEN" crowd includes nonbinary lesbians because they see nonbinary people as women. Nonbinary can mean woman with short hair or woman who uses they/them pronouns or maybe even woman who got top surgery, but god forbid nonbinary lesbians call themselves men or go on T or get bottom surgery or be someone who was assigned male at birth and doesn't want to medically transition. Basically, they only support nonbinary people if they can conveniently view them as "basically a woman."

There's no way to be a trans ally if you view "male" and "female" as mutually exclusive or as polar opposites. That shit is Gender Binary 101, and deconstructing it should be one of the first steps of being a trans ally. It shouldn't be something that other trans and nonbinary people believe so commonly. Not only does this mindset exclude multigender people who are both men and women, but it hurts binary trans people who are connected to or feel like they used to be their assigned gender.

"We can't accept men who identify as lesbians, because then they will invade lesbian spaces and force lesbians to date them." Does this sound like TERF talking about lesbian trans women, or a so-called trans ally talking about multigender lesbians? Trick question, it sounds like both, because they're practically indistinguishable from each other. So many trans allies, even trans/nonbinary people themselves, will make the exact same arguments as TERFs and not see a single thing wrong with it, and it's awful.

You're not helping the trans community if you only accept identities that are convenient for you.

[twewyautismshowdown]

btw, as the anon who talked about nonverbal assistive devices regarding kaie (saying this because i saw someone else sharing my words :') thank you very much), i will say that i believe that nagi also falls under the category of person who cannot be ignored even by non-autistic people. i have not met a single fan who did not find something "off" about nagi. whether they celebrated it or found it a reason to consider her a weirdo or even annoying, and whether or not they recognised it as "autistic", it seems pretty much everyone who plays the game DETECTS NAGI'S NEURODIVERGENCE in a similar fashion to kaie's. nagi is another AMAZING example of neurodivergence in fiction: autistic characters are typically MALE rather than FEMALE, and female autistic characters are almost ALWAYS shown as either "hyper-competent beyond typical means" (the genius hacker stereotype, for instance) or as "bumbling ineffectual losers" (most 'fangirl' type characters). in almost all cases their autistic traits are used to moeify them, make them "larger than life" (again re: geniuses) in ways that most irl autistic people cannot do, and/or render the helpelss and dependent on a (typically male) player through traits such as anxiety or not understanding social cues.

nagi is an amazing example of an autistic version who GETS TO KEEP HER SPECIAL INTEREST and even has her dedication to her special interest being something that HELPS HER BECAUSE SHE HAS A SPECIAL INTEREST, NOT IN SPITE OF IT, with her special interest helping OTHERS as well. instead of not understanding social cues, she is the MOST EMOTIONALLY INTELLIGENT IN THE GROUP (as autistic people often are, especially girls and women, when they have had to cope their whole lives) yet still is unable to avoid "appearing autistic" to others, as seen in her dialogue and even in her battle lines, where she gets half the cast (rindo, beat, and sho) to comment on her screeching. she often has on the "wrong expression" during cutscenes, appearing troubled at happy times or sneering at sad times. and all of these are treated as aspects of herself rather than something that she needs to fix or improve.

her autistic traits are shown to both harm her (her hyperempathy makes her nearly drown in the "ocean of despair" of feelings during W3, or her difficulty in dealing with unannounced change made her melt down during her introduction, or how the social network talks about other EleStra fans who being her aura overwhelming and intimidating) and also help her (her dedication to EleStra repeatedly allowed her to compartmentalise her feelings in ways that i have done MANY times to deal with later at a time when it would be personally safer to melt down, and even fret is amazed at her ability to help others through saying the right thing -- good and bad to hyperempathy!).

furthermore, nagi is a main character present throughout the game. she isn't a mega genius. she doesn't do anything that a "typical person" cannot do. her autistic traits contribute to her powers (i.e. Dive is EASILY an extension of her hyperempathy) but 'autism is not her superpower', rather her autistic traits are simply part of her, informing her abilities in the way that all the other characters' traits inform their abilities instead of that being the "point" of her character. she just gets to exist and be autistic and that's really cool.

i can't tell you how incredible it is to have a "wacky" character with tons of autistic traits who is also the most emotionally mature in part because of these "wacky" traits.

i love both kaie and nagi to death. but i had to pick nagi for this one.

anon, i love you so much. the person who shared your words on the poll was me on my main, and even though i ended up voting kaie, this is exactly why i've wanted her to win since the start and why she's my #1 seed, even of the top 4. i've been trying to keep my personal opinions off this blog but it's the final round and there's genuinely no losing here. both options are incredible and important and represent and under-represented group of autistic people. genuinely the best final matchup we could have gotten, i think.

[amateurletariat]

I recently brought up P2025 to the in-laws, and was met basically with:

"I will rephrase my question and pose it again: "What has actually happened? Not whether some groups disagree with you, or whether they propose legislation you disapprove of, or whether they disseminate views contrary to yours." Surely that is the mark of a free society rather than a tyranny. But no tangible changes have arisen. When 38 states ratify a Constitutional amendment outlawing all but 2 gender identities, let me know. Until then, the expression "a tempest in a teapot" comes to mind."

It frustrated the hell out of me and I definitely got short with them for what part of the rest of the exchange I could handle.

Well today I was finally able to come up with what felt like a decent response, and I'm throwing the rough draft up here.

I was asked "What has actually happened?"

I would like to address that here.

Anti-trans legislation that has passed so far is up to a count of 83. https://translegislation.com/bills/2023/passed

Things that have happened:

Book bans. If we're not allowed to learn about a topic how can we fight for or against it? Intentionally foisting ignorance of the existence of a population is one of the first steps of genocide.

Bills that force trans people to use public bathrooms that match their assigned gender at birth. This would force someone post transition into the wrong bathroom. Think a trans male that looks like the Rock being forced into the women's room.

Drag bans. Claiming drag, or any queer person simply existing, as being inherently sexual is one of many ways to erase us from the public eye. It is also used in the excuse of 'save the children' to prevent any so‐called perversion from being present.

'Don't Say Gay' in FL. Teachers are forbidden from "discussing or instructing" on any kind of sexual orientation or gender identity in the classroom, specifically K-3. Talking about hetero-normativity is not banned, however. This has opened the door to bans on discussion in older groups, as well.

Bills claiming to be about parental rights. These bills claim that school admins must automatilly report if a student expresses interest or asks to be called a different name or gender, forcibly outing them to parents in ways that may be unsafe. If a student doesn't feel comfortable coming out to their parents, that is a very likely indicator that it would be dangerous to do so.

Sports bans. Denying access to people that already have to go through HRT, and an incredible amount of testing to ensure a level playing field, is another way to prevent us from engaging in public life.

Outright bans on gender affirming care for anyone under 18. We have a plethora of evidence that shows preventing trans people, including trans youth, from accessing gender affirming care increases risks for things like self harm and suicide.

~~~

Trans people have a propensity for mental health issues, but that's primarily caused by anti-trans rhetoric at all levels.

People in congress are trying to push for trans people in the military to be stripped of gender affirming care.

People at the state level are banning trans people from bathrooms and public life.

People at the city level are doing the same.

Groups and individuals regularly target queer people with words and with violence.

Some other queer folx are even against trans rights, with movements like 'LGB drop the T' and similar.

When we are dismissed outright, or invalidated, when we are murdered at higher rates than most, we have dire need of substantial support. This means people educating themelves instead of relying on one or two people close to them. That means listening when we are distressed. That means understanding that just because you aren't aware of something or experiencing it first-hand that it isn't actually happening.

I am part of multiple groups that have been attacked and othered for most of our history.

I am neurodivergent ~ Autism and ADHD among others. I'm sure I don't need to go into detail about how ND folx have been and still are treated. Disability "benefits" are currently made to prevent us from having viable opportunity. Ableism is ingrained in our society.

I am jewish ~ We have been hunted down since the advent of the catholic church. Pogroms have been worldwide for millenia. Antisemitism is ramping up once again. I, and most of the jews I know, are tired and wary and scared.

I am queer ~ The gay panic of the 80s in which the government turned a blind eye to those suffering from AIDS. Gay marriage only began to be legalized less than 2 decades ago, and only became nationwide 8 years ago. My own mother took steps to do what she saw as curbing queer tendencies in me. Homophobia and transphobia are still quite prevalent, and we have much more work to do to ensure equality.

I am mixed race, including native ~ I think we all understand what is implied here. Native land has been regularly stolen for the exploitation of natural resources, to the extreme detriment of inhabitants.

Intersectionality abounds, amirite?

I was brought up not knowing any of that about myself. My education was white-washed and I didn't learn just how bad it has been for minority groups until I started educating myself.

I didn't learn who I truly was because information and experiences that were not pre-approved or considered 'appropriate' weren't allowed.

I was blamed and punished for being 'difficult' rather than anyone understanding I wasn't neurotypical.

My whole life I've been inundated with antisemitism..Learning about how jewish people were segregated from public life has made it more possible to see the parallels in anti-trans legislation today.

I didn't learn that the nazis destroyed *the* gender studies institute, until last year.

I wasn't taught about the trail of tears, except that it happened. A blurb in a textbook.

All this to say that while steps have been made to make things better for more people, there is *significant* pushback to reverse any social equality progress that has been made.

~

When I tried to bring up my concerns before, I felt outright dismissed. Entirely so. As though my concerns were entirely unfounded. That was incredibly invalidating and hurt immensely.

Please do the legwork of educating yourselves on issues that may not affect you. Getting to calmly debate matters of rights and economics is a privelege of those not under legislative assault.

[genderstarbucks]

I'm not trans but I agree transandrophobia is a real thing.

People try to explain how it "doesn't exist" because it's just misogyny, general transphobia, or racism, which just erases the specific discrimination/experience of trans men / transmascs. Like the "betraying their womanhood" thing. I do think there's overlap there with general bigotry against masculinity/men/maleness, like some lgbt specific examples that come to mind is people saying attraction to men is disgusting and gross, someone being masculine in their presentation or gender is ugly and disgusting, or just how some connection to men/masculinity makes something repulsive. And there's intersection with other issues like misogyny, racism, and general transphobia. But like there's really a specific experience there.

Also like the arguments with whether they experience discrimination or not. Like oh do they experience misogyny or not? Do they experience transphobia or not (if they pass)? Do they even face any life difficulties? And the answers for these always bounce around, oh they can get discriminated against if they're mistaken for a woman, maybe if they get mistaken for a trans woman, maybe if they don't pass. Like the big idea is "they're privileged until they're not". It's conditional, it works if they're not recognised as TRANS MEN, like that's not privilege dude. By that same logic, a closed gay man listening to homophobes talk about how they hate gay men is privileged, a poc person (or, I'm not sure what the right word here is) being mistaken for a white person and listening white people talk about how harmful stereotypes of their ethnicity is privileged. They're not privileged for being themselves, it's just ignorance, and ignorance is not safety/privilege.

The ping pong effect between all this, arguments about what discrimination they face, I feel like is a unique thing I see with trans men, and also the "betraying their womanhood" thing I mentioned above, like I feel like there's a specific negative mentality directed towards them that isn't directed at other groups, not the same way. And even if transandrophobia has overlap with other bigotries, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you think about it, all bigotries kind of overlap with each other, like they have similar talking points. I know there's some specific stuff with transphobia that's just homophobia, with the words gay replaced with trans, but that doesn't mean transphobia isn't real and it's just homophobia. Like there's similarities, but it's still a important word because they're a separate group, like there's stuff under transphobia that wouldn't be encompassed under homophobia.

I feel like transandrophobia is the same. The reason why they don't clearly fit into other bigotries is cause those words just aren't for them specifically. They're not going to have the exact same experiences as cis men, cis women, and trans women. And even for the experiences that are somewhat similar, it's still not quite the same because they're trans men. Of course any bigotry that isn't discrimination against trans men / transmascs, is not going to perfectly describe the discrimination against trans men / transmascs. I think this word is really important to have, they are their own distinct minority group, they're going to have their own unique issues.

Lol this turned into a mini essay😂 I saw your post and I had to cook. Sorry for the poor vocabulary+grammar.

You read my mind dude

Like why is masculinity and men so frowned upon??

I've seen so many people say that trans men and transmascs are "going to the bad side" when they transition

If you're a cis man and present masculine, it's fine

But if you're a trans man and present masculine, then it's bad

If you're a straight girl attracted to men, it's fine

But if you're a man attracted to men, then it's gross

I've been treated perfectly fine when I've been seen as a cis man, but then when those same people find out I'm actually trans (not even from me telling them btw, they just found out??) they all of a sudden they start "accidentally" misgendering me and calling me she

All of this hatred towards men and masculinity is just

Awful

Like I completely understand not wanting to date men or being weary around them because of trauma

But at the same, don't assume all of us are bad.

We're not bad *just* because we're men or masculine, not all men are bad people

Like I have some cis man friends who are literally the sweetest people in the world, they're not bad just because they're cis men

And with *those* straight men and lesbians who still date trans men because they don't pass...like what the fuck

But as soon as they do start to pass, take testosterone, etc. they don't like them anymore

Obviously, you can still be a straight man or lesbian and date trans men (mspec straights/lesbians, those trans men being okay with their partner still calling themselves straight/lesbian, etc.) but those people bro istg 😭

I'm just tired of all this hatred towards men and masculinity

I'm a man whether people like it or not

And idc that some people will say I'm not a "real" man just because I'm trans

If someone says they're a man, then they're a man, no matter how they may present their gender

I'm a man who loves men and nothing anybody says is going to stop me from being a man and kissing men

[joannerowling]

re: ask about people "reclaiming", homophobic slurs that are not from their language.

It's very true. and it's coming equally bad from both sides. On one hand, people of non-english upbringing, who never lived in the environment and neve were submerged in the culture, where those slurs originated from, have literally no business reclaiming them. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. If some western trans gay boy began call himself a pidor/pidorás (really violent slur for gay man in many slavic languages) since he is gay so it's okay to reclaim this quirky slavic word for gay ppl, i would go feral. I don't understand, why doesn't it work the other way. It so easy to think for a moment and understand that it's not your word to reclaim.

But on the other hand, english-speaking LGBTQ+ community has desensitised q slur so much, that for a foreigner, who is constantly in these online spaces, it's doesn't seem like it's a slur at all. A lot of new labels and genders and orientations are now including the slur, so maybe it okay to use. That's why im constantly stumbling upon people from my native online spaces, who call themselves queerplatonic or queergender or something like that. (the f slur hasn't reached us so far and i hope never will). I can totally see how someone just picked a label because it became so common in the US/Canada/UK, and the opposite opinions are drowned out by the louder crowds or labeled terfy.

I will say, to play devil's advocate here a little only for the sake of rounding the argument: language doesn't evolve spontaneously, and occasionally slurs can go from "slurs" to "no longer slurs" through cultural change. For example, in French, we have the word "con", which initially meant vagina and would have been used as a misogynistic insult (basically the same as "cunt", i believe the two are etymologically close). However today "con" has evolved to be used exclusively for men with a relatively large range in meaning (going from "dickhead" to "idiot"; sometimes it's applied in a genderless way, kind of teasingly - as in "t'es con" to mean "you're a bit of a dummie" or "you just made a bad joke/excessive one". It's all in the tone and context). Most, oh i'd really say 90% of French people at this point, have no idea what "con" used to mean. I've had that conversation with a French radfem once who said she refused to use it because of the original meaning, and my question to her was, what matters when identifying an insult, the word itself or the intent? It's an open one.

Perhaps this is what people hope will happen to "queer", though i don't think it's a good parallel with "con" - it could be if "queer" was used to design some completely different group or thing than homosexuals. You could argue it's already kind of happening though, many more people than you'd suspect have started recognising that "queer" and "gay" are different things (mostly because "queer" associations and media have completely stopped putting forth the fight for same-sex rights). I've seen that sentiment on radblr, "they can call themselves queer all they like but don't include me in it", as well as the firmer "queer is insulting period, and heteros don't get to reclaim a slur that was never thrown at them". Since it's not my language i'm not gonna pick one position over the other, but i guess both exist for equally good reasons.

(Like you i also noticed "faggot" is much less subjected to that. People seem a little more aware of that one and less willing to "reclaim it" or approriate it, outside of the worst of trans identified women. Why that is i don't know. Maybe because it's perceived as being more exclusively used for gay men, and violence against gay men is more well-known in general?)

Another thing your second paragraph highlights is something we don't talk about a lot i think: that for how culturally diverse "queer" spaces claim to be, they are fairly homogenous and singularly minded beneath the surface. Especially outside of native English speaking countries, because the kind of people who can speak English fluently enough to access these topics have specific backgrounds (it's very visible in France because people are generally not good at English here). This is why you can find several active LGBTQIA+ groups in Paris or some big cities and will struggle to find even one in much less prestigious unis.

[bitingfaggotry]

nobody is saying trans men aren't oppressed at all, just that we aren't oppressed for being men. we're oppressed for being transgender. it's true that trans men and trans women both have unique experiences but "transandrophobia" or "transmisandry" imply that men are oppressed for being men and exist to detract from transmisogyny. go into the tags of phraes like this and you'll be bombarded with trans men complaining that trans women have more privilege than them, that the wider trans community only cares about trans women, and refusing to acknowledge transmisogyny. we can talk about the issues trans men face without detracting from and contributing to transmisogyny. that's not being a pick me

it's true that trans men and trans women both have unique experiences but "transandrophobia" or "transmisandry" imply that men are oppressed for being men and exist to detract from transmisogyny

to start: trans men and trans women also have similar experiences, this is what i was referencing with the oppositional sexism mention in a previous response. it is a cissexist assumption that trans men and trans women have to be exact opposites in experiences like cis men and cis women. That is where this kind of detraction for the simple concept of defining the differences in experiences of the oppression transgender men face for being trans men, because people take *men* to mean *trans and cis men* or *only cis men* in this. we are talking about *trans men*

rest of my answer under cut

I just unprivated a post that talks about this oppositional sexism within cis black activist groups i've seen, in that unlike trans politics, there was no desperate attempt to separate other marginalizations (being black) from gender. I will never see someone be so desperate to say to a black man "you aren't oppressed for being a man, you are only oppressed for being black" or "you made it like that guys, you choose it, all of that is on you"

no one makes jokes about the ~those other black men~ who care about "antiblack misandry" (are you seeing how ridiculous this is?)

because for one its deeply insensitive, and two it doesn't need to be done to acknowledge that misogynoir exists, and vis versa! the subgroup theory (not even a popular or universally adopted concept) of antiblack misandry doesn't suddenly mean misogynoir doesn't exist

a blanket transfer of cis men/woman, oppressor/oppressed conceptualization of gender in trans spaces means that any acknowledgment of how being a trans man or trans masc impacts the kinds of transphobia one faces, supposedly deteriorates transmisogyny theory which should not happen because they are not binaries, they are *similar and/or different* experiences that do not cancel each other out

You're right, we can talk about anti-transmasculinity without detracting from trans women, yet as we see here, any mention of trans men's oppression gets a "and trans women?" and that can be fair! forgetting to talk about trans women leads to the cissexist assumption that men and women have to be exact opposites, which is why i mention that the experiences can overlap and be similar, here we are talking about defining and describing the differences of experiences

this reminds me so much of the reaction to the term "nonblack" by other poc acting as though acknowledging antiblack racism detracts from other kinds of racism. its defining differences, not what is worse/better or actually exists/doesn't exist. and I bet you can think of examples of how people do detract from other forms of racism, yet that doesn't mean these terms should stop being used

you can call anyone who wants to act like trans women are privileged and ignores transmisogyny a transmisogynist! they are being cissexist too, looking like t3rfs for a woman/man binary, oppressed/oppressor within trans spaces to blame trans women for everything, you should not take what they say seriously

overall this is misunderstanding of how transness impacts gendered oppression from the infiltration within trans spaces of second wave radfems (both the inclusive and exclusive philosophy) that ignore how marginalizations impact men: who are always privileged (not the case for trans men), always never oppressed (ask any cis white woman if they think they oppress trans men or men of color, see what their reaction is)

tldr: cis men do not experience anti-transmasculinity, gendered oppression for trans people is informed by being transgender unlike cis people. also transmisogyny will always exist regardless of whether or not "anti-transmasculinity" is used by a subsection trans men

[cosmicjoke]

@syabm

Alright bitch, since you blocked me before I could reply, after whining about me blocking you, here you are anyway, just so everyone can know who the clown is defending genocide:

I think I just activated your dumb-fuck card, is what you mean.

Allow me to relieve you of your pseudo-intellectual quandary.

You don't believe me? It's literally provable by Israel leaderships own words and actions. They're attacking Rafah right now, the "safe zone" they told all the Palestinians to go to, the same way they've repeatedly attacked other supposed safe zones, refugee areas, hospitals, schools, UN buildings, etc, etc... And I didn't put "safe zone" in quotation marks to quote you, ass-hate, I put it in quotation marks because it's a sarcastic term in this context. There is no "safe zone", and your continued denial of that hard truth doesn't change the fact.

Also, you mean the same Hamas government that Netanyahu and his party are on tape discussing, talking about funding and ensuring they have support because it will make the Palestinian population easier to control? You mean that government? I guess you also think all the people that died on 9/11 deserved it because they voted for George Bush and other, corrupt and sociopathic government officials. Great logic there. Keep exposing yourself for the socipath you are. It's pretty funny to watch.

Half the population in Gaza are children, you moron. They were either too young, or hadn't even been born yet, when Hamas was voted into power, yet they're now the group being slaughtered en masse for something they had nothing to do with. You also conveniently leave out the fact that Gaza hasn't been allowed, by Israel, to hold elections since Hamas got into power. There's been no elections there since 2007. How about the consistent and constant campaigns launched by Israel against Gaza over the years, routinely flattening infrastructure, killing civilians, arresting mass numbers of people, including children, and detaining them without due process of any kind, not allowing anyone OUT of Gaza without a special permit, purposefully bombing their airports so no one can leave, firing on fishing boats that dare to stray too far from shore, and even counting the number of calories they would allow inside the strip on a day to day basis? You wouldn't know about any of that though, I'm guessing, since you continue to display your woeful depth of ignorance every time you open your mouth. But go on, keep telling me how the Palestinians brought this shit on themselves by daring to fight back against a colonial settlement forced on them by the British empire. You clearly don't know shit about Israel's history, so why do you keep talking about as if you do?

"Ah, yes, the ol' "they have no responsibility for their actions because Israel did bad things" argument."

Do you not see the absurd double-standard of this statement?

Ah, yes, the ol "they have no responsibility for their actions because Hamas did bad things", argument.

Total clown show over here.

Also, what did you do, create a second account just to harass me?

I blocked you because I've dealt with so many deniers of reality just like you who will make any and all justifications for literal genocide, and I have no desire to interact with trash human beings, sorry.

Also, Israel as it is now doesn't have a right to exist. They're squatting on stolen land and doing everything in their power to ethnically cleanse its native population, with the goal of creating a ethno-supremacist Jewish state. Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it? Wonder where I've seen that before?

But again, keep telling yourself I'm the antisemite while you parrot all the same ideological fanaticism that fueled Nazi Germany. Disgusting pig.

Goodbye now. Have fun continuing to make excuses for the mass murder of women, children and men who had nothing to do with what happened on Oct. 7th. I'm sure if you whisper it hard enough to yourself in the dark of night, you'll be able to convince yourself you're not a completely morally bankrupt shit-bag.