#and that's not to say that anti-trans jews don't exist. i Know they do. i'm talking about the stereotype

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Another healing thing I like about my irl jewish community is that my masculinity hasn't ever been questioned. In a lot of ways, I totally get where people feel uncomfortable with the binary expectations of the genders are, but I live my life functionally in a binary way. It's just nice (for me) to wear kippah, to speak hebrew, and it's clear what the expectation is for who I am. In so many ways, it's nice to just take a break from feeling the need to educate people, to be almost a sounding board, and to just focus on judaism. I've gotten so used to feeling out of place that being in jewish spaces just feels nice.

Of course, this isn't to say that all jewish spaces are the same, that jews are a monolith. This is just my experience at my shul. I appreciate that they just accepted me into the fold and that I haven't had to give a seminar like I feel many people in non-jewish spaces almost require of you so that they can even consider accepting you. I know there is a lot of work that trans jews have done and are still doing, and we ought to highlight, recognize, and appreciate.

[littlestpersimmon]

Most movements that center on exclusion and separatism will always fail to see (and therefore fail to dismantle in any meaningful way) systems of oppression. T3rves will complain about trans women in women's prisons and will never, ever complain about the existence of prisons in the first place, Transmeds will completely isolate themselves from any iteration of transhood that does not medicalize itself, therefore leaving the thousands of trans identities of various cultures as totally invalid, and having the medical industry be the end all be all of arbiters on the matter. Do u get what I'm saying. Any conversation around oppression that frames an oppressed demographic as exceptionally oppressed often turn into echo chambers where it becomes impossible to talk about the intricacies and intersectionalities of bigotry, often resulting into demands of unconditional support, with guilt tripping and weaponized marginalization. Being an antizionist jew has been, actual, literal hell when I know by heart every single liberal zionist Jewish argument that every moderate on this website falls for. I have to make myself clear that I put anti imperialism over my own feelings, that many many others before me have pointed out how callous it is to center jewish feelings, to invoke the millenia of our peoples suffering, to speak of antisemitism in tandem with palestinian resistance, as if speaking of palestine insinuates a steady slope onto hatred of Jews. Many cliques on this website have a bunch of enablers to exploit their own status as part of a marginalized and oppressed group to silence any criticism of Israel and America, which is to me is incredibly perverse and manipulative. If you are a true ally to Jews, any place in the world should be a safe place for us, and it should not be at the desire to build ethnostates on the expense of an indigenous population made to reckon with crimes they did not commit. I don't know.

[transmascpetewentz]

Welcome to my blog! 🤍💙🤍

Hello everyone, I'm sure you already know me, but for the new people: I'm Lou, I'm a bigender (in a jewish sense) fem gay trans man, I'm white/slavic, and I'm converting to Judaism. There isn't really a theme to my blog, I just find sideblogs too hard to keep track of so I keep everything in one spot. Politics, my personal life, and fandom will be posted here all as one stream of consciousness.

Here's my old pinned post if you ever need it, though the information on there may be outdated and probably doesn't reflect my current views if I've said something contradictory more recently. You can find my tagging/filtering system, general content warnings, and more about me under the cut.

To all the lurkers on my page, kiss the meowzuzah on your way in!

(all credit goes to @the-catboy-minyan)

Longer About Me

I'm converting to Judaism. Currently, I'm working on observing Shabbat and beginning more serious Torah study. We'll see where this goes; I would say that the journey > the destination, if the destination wasn't so good. You'll see me shitposting about this a lot, because it's something that's important to me and my brain likes to make up jokes about everything I think about for a prolonged period of time.

I'm also learning Hebrew. Currently, it isn't very good, but I can hold a basic conversation using some Google translate for individual words. I had to re-learn nikud because of reading the Siddur and Tanakh. I'm not very commentary-literate, though I've attempted to get into reading some for the Torah. Also, I keep mostly kosher!

Tag Filtering

So, I'm not very good at tagging, but one that I use pretty frequently is #ask to tag and it's a catch-all for anything that you might want to proceed with caution in. I also use #long post and #arguing a lot, for long posts and arguing respectively. Other than that, I'll tag most things about a certain bigotry with #[bigotry], including examples of that bigotry. If you're affected by said bigotry, you can and should filter the tag for your mental health!

I recommend that you filter out certain words entirely instead of just tags if you are triggered by a subject, since I oftentimes forget to tag posts with adequate warning tags. I don't like to tag things a lot, so if you are triggered by things I post about a lot and word filtering doesn't work for you, feel free to unfollow.

Although this is not an ED blog, I have an eating disorder and I post about it under the tag #ed talk. If you are uncomfortable with hearing that kind of discussion, block the tag and don't engage with the posts. If you are the kind of person who thinks people with eating disorders should have to censor themselves online for the comfort of others, do yourself a favor and don't follow me at all.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are you a Zionist?

It depends on how we're defining Zionism. If we're defining Zionism as "support of the modern state of Israel," I am a post-Zionist because the state exists. If we're defining Zionism as "the right of Jews as a native people to live and have self-determination in their native land," (which is also my personal definition), I am a proud Zionist. If Zionism means "support for the murder of innocent Palestinian people," then I am anti-Zionist, but that is a definition that divorces Zionism from its historical context.

Can you reblog my donation post?

Probably not, unless we already know each other. Due to the amount of donation scams that have popped up on tumblr recently, I don't feel safe giving money to random people that ask.

[orphee-aux-enfers]

I. Don’t understand how being against homophobia and misogyny and informational suppression is cultural relativism? Yeah I have a #USAmerican raised Christian bias but I think not being bioessentialist and anti-intellectual is. Normal???? Genuinely don’t understand

Okay so. My guess from how this was written is that you are either a child or just into your 20s. I'd expect much different wording and approach if you were older. So. I'm going to try and be as gentle and clear cut as possible.

1) Orthodox Judaism is actually quite diverse and also different from Christianity, even fundamentalist Christianity .

2) What you're witnessing is not necessarily indicative of the actual community values; you are interpreting without insider perspective, or seemingly any actual knowledge. You're also ascribing motive to actions that may or may not be there.

3) many orthodox Jews, myself included, are queer and trans and embraced by our community. Every person of authority I've spoken to on the matter says that my incredibly queer, t4t marriage that gets read as gay no matter what, still gets the mitzvah of sex on erev Shabbos, and that includes my main community of Chabad.

4) many books are screened before being given to children by all people everywhere for a variety of reasons. Just because you don't fully understand the reasons as you are not yourself Orthodox Jewish doesn't mean that they are automatically something to be hated due to your preconceived notions.

5) Assuming a group is inherently homophobic, misogynistic, etc. Simply because you don't understand them as you are not part of their community is in fact a bad behaviour, yes. Don't do that. Most of the time, in most communities people are at worst confused.

6) As for misogyny... It's important to know the ways in which Judaism actually structures it's sex roles. No one has different sex roles because they're lesser, which misogyny implies. And every SINGLE person I have ever met observes mitzvos based on sex due to actually desire, not coercion. But for example, married women cover their hair as a way of making their marriage even more holy. Men meanwhile are told to cover their head at all times so they are mindful of G-d at all times. What does this imply at first glance? Why, that women are capable of remembering G-d at all times and the men are silly and must forget G-d if not reminded! Do we think this is all to the interpretation?

So. Before you judge our community so harshly... Perhaps also consider the last century of human history alone. We are being killed and hurt at alarming rates again, especially in the USA. Is it any wonder we don't stop in the streets to justify our existence to you?

Lastly, an oversharing of my personal details because as I am currently safe and well at home, I feel I ought to give you opportunity to understand that you aren't seeing/understanding the complexity of sex roles in Judaism

7) so, yes, orthodox Judaism has gender/sex based roles. It also is, in my experience, pretty flexible to meet individuals. I was coercively assigned female at birth. I was however by Jewish law, tumtum. In English terms, I had ambiguous genitals which could be surgically changed. My sister wanted a baby sister. And so, I was surgically "corrected" and raised female, until puberty and onset of hormonal problems that indicated that it wasn't just a genital mutation. I felt disconnected from binary gender, and at time, in part of my community having a label for me while the hospital I was born at had simply labeled me "incorrect", I came to embrace a masculine social standing. Because I was unable to be sexed as an infant, have masculine levels of testosterone and a lack of menses for years at a time, I have to adhere to both male and female sex based mitzvos. Religiously, I am operating with the strictest possible adherence, but this is all written and debated, as are all of the other sexes in Judaism. I am, however, allowed to exist as intersex in a Jewish community in a way that I am NEVER allowed to exist as intersex without a fight in the secular world, to the point that if it's not relevant I identify only as trans, because otherwise it becomes too complicated in the secular world. And this is genuinely because there is actually a space for me to exist in, as there are six Talmudic sexes.

Being trans and intersex is "allowed". Being queer is "allowed". Some communities differ, but I've lived in seven, and all of them have been more accepting of me being queer, trans, and intersex, than any secular space, including liberal and leftist spaces. At WORST, I am met with curiosity because I am new to the community. I think, perhaps, too many people in this world mistake curiosity with hatred.

[owlbelly]

thinking about the concept of "reclamation" vis a vis slurs, derogatory caricatures (including in folklore - friends posting about Krampus & antisemitism), story tropes etc.

& how we all have different ideas or lines we don't cross about what is reclaimable & by whom. like for some people certain things are always going to provoke hurt/anger/distrust no matter who is using them or how! & for others in the same groups those things can be an essential part of navigating existence as a marginalized person on your own terms. i have no feelings about Krampus at all i'm certainly not on team "Jews MUST reclaim Krampus, sexily" but i also do feel super strongly about "reclaiming"/owning other monstrous caricatures of things that i fucking am (fat, queer/trans, disabled, Jewish, etc.). some things i literally don't have a word for that hasn't been a slur (queer!) & we all know why marginalized people love monsters! it's been analyzed to the moon & back. which is besides the point of being able to recognize when something has its origins in hatred. that part is not negotiable, everybody DOES actually need to be able to know what they're looking at before they decide how they feel about it. but people are going to decide differently.

i bump up against this a fair amount in my own artwork, i've been accused multiple times of making antisemitic work because i'm making art about being a Jewish freak, primarily for other Jewish freaks. people are allowed to feel what they feel about what i do. i'm not gonna do it differently though!

i also am feeling really fucked up over some shit i saw the other day on a different website comparing the Magen David to a swastika (in the context of Israel) & suggesting that anti-Zionist Jews completely disown it. like. that is deeply fucking upsetting to me on several levels. this is a symbol that was used ON Jews during genocide, now being used BY (certain) Jews committing genocide. it makes me fucking sick. & yes ever since the creation of Israel it's had this violent connotation, but we also have continued to say "ISRAEL DOES NOT OWN THIS" because it's a historic symbol in our culture. i have a visceral reaction to seeing a swastika & i also can fucking recognize when a swastika is used in an original religious/cultural context. folks are passing around the historic resolution by Indigenous people to stop using the swastika post-WWII which was a very moving act of solidarity! but also i've always thought that was fucked as hell for them to feel like they had to do! it was stolen from them & debased. they have every right to say "no, fuck that, this is ours." the Nazi swastika was also inverted so it was visually distinct, it's able to be recognized - a blue & white Magen David is unquestionably Israeli & i know it when i see it, but i don't assume anyone wearing a star is a Zionist because, imo, that's fucking antisemitic. i didn't wear a star or use it in my artwork for a really long time & then i got angry as hell about it & started up again in addition to being even louder in my anti-Zionism. the idea that someone might see me wearing it or see my anti-Zionist art & assume that it's a symbol of hate is horrific to me. but i would never tell a Palestinian person they were wrong to have that visceral reaction! i don't know what to do about it except try to be as clear as possible about my stance against Israel while still refusing to give up a part of my visual culture to debasement. the idea that a Jewish star needs to be "reclaimed" now really fucking hurts & there is only Zionism to blame for that shit.

[lazykurocat]

I know most of this has been said far better by others but holy shit do I need to rant! I find it really sad yet funny how people will still try so hard to claim they aren't antisemitic and then be like"Israel shouldn't exist" that's one of the most bullshit things I've ever heard anyone say, then there's "I hate Zionist" when clearly you don't have the first clue about Zionism, it is simply put: Jewish people wanting a safe place to live, they've always been outcast everywhere so why is it so bad that they'd have their place? they've always been there and always will be in Israel. if you are anti-Zionist you are anti Jew. I've seen people try to claim that Israel started Hamas...?? like? what??no... sis you good?. most people, even now still don't know which river and which sea and it's embarrassing! I know I often come at this topic from a queer lens as I'm gay and trans and not Jewish personally, but honestly I'm scared both for Jewish people, and my fellow queers, Jewish folk I know personally have said to me they don't feel safe I don't feel safe around a lot of people anymore aswell for my queerness, because they claim to be allies... but how can you be my ally when you support Palestine? they fucking hate LGBT+ folk there, we are not welcome there, we would be killed there so to say "I'm an ally" feels so fake to me. to be part of the LGBT and still support that living hell of a place and act as though Israel started this and Palestine only wants peace and freedom? are you mad??! are you insane?? I only feel bad for people who want to be free from Hamas rule. and for the poor children who are raised into thinking Suicide bombing is a good thing and they should do it. not those who willingly support throwing my people off buildings and burn our flags. I will never fucking support Palestine as it is now EVER. if more people started saying free Palestine/Gaza from Hamas that would be a great fucking start. I am so fucking pissed off with some people my fucking lord. and another fucking thing! stop acting like Israel started October 7th! Israelis were murdered over nothing, I watched videos of Hamas shooting and killing people and even dogs. They are monsters they are rapists! you are supporting baby killers! you are supporting the real genocide! NEVER FORGET THE TRUTH OF OCTOBER 7th, because Hamas want to kill us all, Jewish, gay, trans, Queer, non Muslim! they are terrorists, they want to do October 7th over and over and over and over until there are no Jews left! FUCK HAMAS

[thebreakfastgenie]

Whether you made up a guy or not, I find your post in poor taste. I mean, imagine being on the other end of that. Imagine if that post had been about misogyny instead.

“After seeing this person be annoying online, I realised why people become misogynists. It’s wrong of them and they should get offline and touch grass but you know, I’m just saying, most misogynists are radicalised by meeting an annoying woman. I know this because they said so on Reddit. So I mean, that’s bad and wrong to hate them for that, but it makes you think, doesn’t it? If only this person had been less annoying people wouldn’t hate women.”

Like… I know you were saying TERFs were very very wrong for seeing annoying trans people and becoming bigots for it. But to be honest, that is a premise I disagree with. Yes, many Reddit-using TERFs claim(ed) that they became transphobic because of annoying trans people online… but that’s really downplaying the long history of trans bigotry, not to mention the political forces that radicalise young people into hate groups and bigotry. You are not taking into consideration that someone being annoying or abrasive or claiming to speak for a minority group would not be sufficient to bring down hate groups on them were it not for the social and political forces already marginalising those people.

Or to use another comparison in your post, I might see an individual with a Magen David emoji in their name saying some things I disagree with - and if I was uneducated and too online and needed to touch grass, yes, I might conclude that all Jews are [whatever it said in the tweet]. But I wouldn’t become an anti-Semite who believes Jews run the world and engage in blood libel because of that annoying Jewish person on Twitter. I would become that if I had been radicalised by anti-Jewish hate groups.

You're reading a lot into my post that wasn't there.

For one thing, I know I was mostly talking about online, but the posts I referenced in the "peak trans" threads (what they called it) were often about unpleasant experiences TERFs or TERF-sympathetic people (despite it being r/radfem or whatever, there were a number of posts from cis men) had with trans people in real life. It was just a parallel I noticed. We know that just knowing a person from a marginalized group (there was a recent study on this with trans people) can significantly change attitudes towards acceptance, so I think it's reasonable to hypothesis if someone has had limited interactions with a group and they've been negative it may contribute to less acceptance. Bigotry is often closely tied to fear; this is a similar emotional pathway.

To the main point, I'm not saying this sort of thing radicalizes people the way hate groups do. What I am saying is that toxic social environments like twitter contribute to low-level bigotry and probably prime some people to be radicalized further. It's background radiation that can make people think "maybe the hate groups have a point" or at least not feel particularly strongly about pushing back against them. I don't know why you'd assume I'm discounting other social and political forces. I'm identifying this kind of toxic environment as one social force and analyzing (I use that word loosely because I'm just layperson blogging here) the role it plays in the preponderance of bigotry. I am suggesting that toxic environments like twitter in conjunction with other social forces can result in an increase in bigotry. I guess I didn't think I had to specify that other social forces exist because I thought we all agreed on "systemic transphobia is a real thing."

It's funny that you bring up misogyny, because the interaction I had was on a thread about misogyny. And a random TERF showed up to reply with a TERF copypasta, "look at this dress wearing man talking over a woman about what it's like to be a woman" etc. They probably do that because they know people who are frustrated are more likely to be taken in by that.

What I was trying to emphasize, and what I will reiterate again, is that the onus is on cis people, or whatever other privileged group, to not be poisoned by that background radiation. I think environments like twitter make it easier for people to become bigots but that is not an excuse for bigotry.

[foropinionssake]

I'm gonna rant for a second. I'm an ex muslim radfem from a developing Islamic country. A 2nd world country,is that how you say it? And not from the west. And wtf is going on in the west? How tf did they turn into such a misygonistic shithole? From the right's "women equals property or women equal slaves" to the left's "woman is a feeling". Can the west just be nuked altogether already? I'm sorry but the west is way too far gone at this point. Why does everyone have woman issues there? Really,an asteroid needs to hit the west and wiped them all out except for the radfems. And what the actual fuck is this hellsite? These fucking spoiled western brats are accusing people of anything & everything all because what? Because people don't believe males can be women? Why tf do they get to speak for lesbians & gays and for feminism when they spout revisionist conservative misygonistic womanhating rhetorics? Save for the radfems,everybody sounds insane & unhinged. Also,I found it funny how they're accusing JKR of transphobia and then now of being a holocaust denier. Dude,you wanna see holocaust denier? You should come where I live,muslim males here are number 1 holocaust deniers and anti-semites. No,not anti-zionists,anti semites/anti-jews just for jews existing. Because they believe jews are muslims' natural enemies since day 1 therefore it's ojay to hate them. But funny how the brave and stunning Tumblr warriors absolutely never came for muslim males,not once for openly being holocaust deniers and anti-semites. Funny how they never tell these males to kill themselves. In fact,they don't even come for conservative males in their own countries who are straight up all kinds of terribles and want everybody's rights to be destroyed,women,gays,trans etc. I've seen then being intense & only ever came for radfems or TERFs more than they come for actual nazis. Oh,probably because a lot of trans who screamed kill terfs have been reveal to be nazis before transitions. And ofc,these cowards only ever get to be brave with women. But meek when it comes to males. I've seen them straight up passing off conservative males as terfs or radfems (lol) because the thought that they might actually be facing a conservative,an actual hateful bigot scares them so much. It's almost like these retards know who's the actualy scary bigots & who's not. They know. THEY KNOW . They're no different than conservatives and it's obvious they hate women too,just in a faux progressive way. Of course they would put on a false bravado only with women & take it as a chance for them to shine. They know which targets to act brave with & bother with their retarded bullshit. This rant is incoherent and English isn't my first language. In fact,I don't even use it at home. But I wanna rant to someone who gets me. Someone who's neither a braindead far left liberal or an asshole misygonistic hateful conservative. I mean,I know majority of Tumblr are white westerners but I still need to talk to someone sane to know that not the whole world is crazy or unhinged like the majority of Tumblr. Also,when they say kill all terfs or punch all terfs,do they also mean the whole world? Because I'm sorry to break it to their delusional ass,the whole world is transphobic & doesn't accept trans ideology. And trust me not in the way radfems or terfs do at all. Do they want to punch,kill and multilate the whole world? For not believing males can be women? Sheesh,they are really showing they are indeed western colonizers descendants. The entitlement & their demanding nature that the whole world should think like them. Anytime,I see one of these punchable retards acting all high & mighty telling off and threatening women of color like me for being radfems & for not believing males can be women,and if they're American,I so badly wanted to reply "Your ancestors enslaved black people and it's still not too long ago since it ended. You don't get to tell or lecture people on anything."

Sadly, I agree with most of this. Idk what’s going on or what happened, but it’s scary. I’m glad I’m not having kids, and that I’m a teacher to try and keep things on track best I can. I also want to add: I am not a radfem, I’m a feminist

[boyakishan]

... Because I have no moral sense, I'm a Nazi. Says the guy who uses an anonymous ask like a coward.

... More below.

And I'm a fascist as well, ignoring the part where I don't care about the idea of there being on supreme leader beyond the fact that one leader makes running things easier but that's more of an objective fact than a personal opinion.

And also, gonna ignore the part where I hate Nazis for being a bunch of baby cowards who don't have the balls, alongside their increasingly stupid arguments and ways they deal with shit.

Also ignoring how I'm technically a punk or whatever.

...

Hey. Isn't this kind of reaction to someone revealing their true self, against the social norm of the majority the same kind of thing that happened to queer, gays, Semites and a few other people/groups across history?

Like, I'm not a victim by any account. I'm not the hero, I'm the fucking problem.

But I noticed a weird similarity between this event and the words used in the way they are with actual historical events.

Like, I don't have morals. I don't have the same right or wrong sense. And while I could pretend to have them for your comfort.

... Isn't that was trans people experience on the daily, or what Jews took in stride before being locked up and thrown into gas chambers?

Maybe I'm in the wrong for noting the same vitriol through history. And I'm definitely not the person who knows how to word things in the correct way.

Oh hey, trans people being bombarded with questions they rightfully don't know, or don't feel comfortable answering that are built off bullshit societal parts.

And blacks.

And Asians.

And semites.

And a long list of people/groups that can be called under racism.

...

Ever get the feeling nobody actually learnt anything from history aside from the terrible bad times?

Y'know how people tried to follow Ghandi and a few other peace lovin' people?

And also how y'all just assumed I was talking about nukes and I didn't just wave it off because it wasn't actually important for what I was actually saying and doing.

...

Isn't it also weird that nobody acknowledges the part where anti heroes do exist in the world, people just sugar coat it or don't define them as an anti hero since that's something people don't seem to want to question because...

You can't use bad tactics to do good or fight bad?

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ fuck if I know what I'm doing. Back to writing bullshit stories and seeing how many people are absolute pansies who's "perfect morals" definitely don't look weird where you're mad at someone for calling for violence when you're calling for violence but not the bang bang shooty kind so it's all good.

...

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ words for the purpose of action, but the action is not possible, yet words for insult will not work while words for dialogue are ignored.

Like, what did I say?

I didn't say we SHOULD blow up Israel and Palestine (I think), I said it's the simplest option. Using it to highlight how dumb this all is.

But that's wrong, because.

Because.

Because.

The Nazis did that and therefore using it even as a hypothetical to highlight something is bad.

Ever get the feeling nobody actually learnt anything?

[orhraa-yusu]

And you've not read mine, nor have you actually thought about any of this critically. The fact of the matter is, that while the MSM and leftists will blame white people and white supremacy for shootings, they're doing so with the intention to make white people look like the bad guy. They're parading white people to be the ones in control, and that those who died were powerless to stop it. That's not the same with the Nashville shooter. All you see and hear and posts about how talking about the shooter's motives is violence, it's misgendering to actually call her a 'her', and it's the classic "but muh gun violencess" fault. They're framing this event as something that happens when trans people are not heard, when "push comes to shove", and are basically sweeping all of this under the rug because again, they were Christians, so who the fuck cares.

It is obviously not every single person within the trans community that agrees with the mainstream media, or heaven forbid the shooter, but it is shocking that you're calling out people for something I've never, ever once seen do on any social media post- blame all trans people- while you have a whole community practically sweeping it under the rug. People are getting upset at trans people for doing what they've always been doing- accepting the worse of them, defending them, and pretending their existence is on par with the Jews in Nazi Germany. How many government officials have posted images in solidarity with the trans community? How many people must ignore the fact it was clearly an anti-Christian attack for the "waves of trans violence" that's never going to come to them? Six people died. And all you can say is "but it's not all of us", six people died, and all you care about is some random idiot online saying "all trans people want this" while ignoring the narrative of the MSM and the damage it will do on Christians, three kids and three adults died needlessly, and all you can say is "I don't know if it was an anti-Christian attack", when it so clearly was. I'm pushing an agenda? Buddy, you're the one carrying the weight for shooter.

[brick-van-dyke]

Then don't condescent to mine which you've done repetitively and don't try to investigate my heritage and try to dissect it for me to be allowed to talk, which you've also done multiple times. If you want respect, you have to give it. But you have been nothing of the sort so why should I grant you that? You don't respect Yorta Yorta culture or land back, you co-opt our movement to excuse your own actions despite knowing it DOESN'T mean any of what you've said (again, it's a right to sacred sites and to practice, not exiling whoever else is around), you don't respect the rule of not killing, you're okay with making land uninhabitable for you or others, and you're okay with pollution from the conflict so?? What the hell is your point here?? That you just want to OWN the land? The fuck is Jewish about that? The fuck is LAND BACK about killing the animals and nature on that land? If you just want to say "it's line! I have a deed!" That's totally only political and power motivated and NOTHING to do with land back so keep our movement out of your mouth??

And, again, reading comprehension. I said it typically is orthodox Jews. I never fucking said "there are no Zionist orthodox Jews", sorry you suck at readying, but that's really not my problem.

Israel has over three meanings in ancient Hebrew, and all of them refer back to God and his rule. To claim it as something else literally makes no sense?? "Israel is a man made land" is basically like saying "god is man made" which is...yeah it's not Judaism I'll tell you that. If your religion refuses god and his rule, that's not a religion. Israel refers to god himself, his rule and his people. Israelites are the people of God, literally, they have to follow his rule or they are not his people/ will be sent into exile or punishment for doing so. That's the whole point??

The thing is that if I know orthodox Jews who are anti zionist, you're immediate response isn't "oh okay, I'm not but they exist", it's "they can't exist because I do". Which is fucked up, right? Like you understand that telling people that "this specific type of Jew can't exist because I exist" is literally my entire point of why I think that you sound antisemetic when you say this? Like "that's the wrong Jew and they shouldn't exist" is gross, you can disagree but to claim they should not exist because you do?? Nah. That's not community, that's bloodline obsession bullshit with entitlement over what it means to be allowed to live and have a religion, and that's why I'm so angry. White people say this to us as Yorta Yorta all the time, but we don't. We don't tell each other we're not indigenous enough or refute each other's existence because of where we sit. The only, and I mean ONLY, exception is when they deny us our culture or claim we should be dead. Which is what I often find I'm hearing from Zionists to non Zionist Jews; "if you're not with us you're not allowed to exist".

And yes, to tie back to the terf example it's exactly the same as "well you're not enough of a woman I'd you don't have XX chromosomes" and "well Real queers believe this so you can't exist as a queer". I get it so often, I'm told I can't be bi, gay, or anything if the sort if I let trans people exist. I'm told I personally can't be queer if I am trans because "well I'm queer and not trans so you can't be queer!" It's such a far right talking point and you all just. Don't care if you align with them and use the same rhetoric, as long as it benefits you. You wanna know why I'm so mad at your land back shit? Because you don't respect OUR right to land back and would rather use it than actually show any solidarity so yeah I'm not going to throw my hat with Zionists who disrespect other indigenous people, who hate any Jew who isn't like you and who reject history if it doesn't match what you want out of it.

dear jumblr: STOP LOOKING DOWN ON AND CONDESCENDING TO CONVERTS.

this includes saying “ofc converts don’t notice antisemitism.” or “they’re a convert, they don’t know any better.”

i really don’t think a lot of you realize how many converts don’t reveal they are converts because of this kind of behavior. my own patrilineal convert parent refuses to publicly, not because they are excluded, but because of the condescension. the way converts are basically patted on the head even if they have ancestry, are patrilineal, were raised in a jewish environment, etc. or have none of these at all.

if converts are equals to you, treat them that way. most gerim learned more during their process than many of us learn in hebrew school, let alone what most secular “born” jews learn throughout their lives. so yes, converts DO spot antisemitism. they DO know things. and there isn’t an excuse for them to be bigoted, to spread lies about our people, or to side with our enemies or to otherwise harm their community. just like there isn’t an excuse for any other jew to do so.

you are not being open minded or accepting thinking and talking this way. you are actually engaging in exclusion and separation. you’re looking down on converts instead of treating them like they have equal standing.

if a convert doesnt know something or does display bad behavior? call them in instead of making excuses for them. treat them like equals, because that is what they are.

[maybeshesnaped]

I don't support jk rowling, I don't think she made a good deal to speak publicly in that way. But. I don't think she "attack" anyone. I'm nonbinary and I don't feel attacked by her, other queer and trans don't feel attacked by her too. Then, ALL you stated about the "proves" in her books that she is the awfullest being on earth is internet trash exaggerated by haters.. And bit racist too. Bankers are goblins, so racism, because all Jews are bankers...??? I would feel offended that people assume I am a banker because I'm Jew... Chang is a common chinese surname, Cho maybe not a good choice for a forename (I checked with some Chinese friends), Rawling is not Chinese, and publishers didn't correct it. They have their responsibility too on this type of mistakes. HIV IS A SERIOUS ILLNESS that caused the death of thousands of people, especially in the late 80s / 90s when HP was written, it changes the life of someone for the rest of their existence, personal and work relationship, etc. Negate that is denial. Then I don't think licantropy is as much a metaphor for that, but still, I don't see a bad representation in Remus Lupin. He is one of the most positive character in HP.

At last. Yes. I will unfollow you. But I gave you my opinion. And I add an advice. Being so hateful to jk Rowling brings absolutely nothing. It's a huge lie that the WHOLE trans community is against her, and this war to her is another (yes, another cause she has being hated from a while before this transphobia thing) rumble by haters. And online there's a lot of people who have to find something to be hateful, a reason for their hate to spread.

Again, I don't support her, she didnt make her mind clear before those statements. Her fears do not involve trans people, but criminal CIS MEN. And no, she never addressed trans as criminals, but she gave the impression to do that, which was the mistake. Everybody has fears, phobias, she was abused, has a trauma, pretty understandable she fears men. But her personal fears should not have carried her to write those comments publicly. Then if you feel angry for some reason jogging in the park is much more healthy than rumbling on the internet.

whew, there’s a lot to unpack here

while i do agree that not all trans/queer people took offense at jkr’s stance, that doesn’t take away the fact that the majority did. in addition, what i disagree with in your post, is that jkr’s harmful opinion is solely focused on criminal cis men.

jkr is a person who wrote a whole ass book about a man who dressed as a woman and killed women. she really and shamelessly went into such great lengths to vilify trans women.

“One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress,” Jake Kerridge writes in his review.

she is also the kind of person who praised a woman who compared being transgender to doing blackface as i showed in this post

she is also the kind of person who promoted an anti-trans shop that sells disgusting anti trans items. a shop that sells pins saying “trans women are men” and “notorious transphobe”. 

Other items they sell include pins that say “Woman is not a costume” and “Transmen are my sisters” and “Sorry about your dick bro” and “XX (female)” and “F*ck your pronouns” and “Transactivism is Misogyny,” some of which even display the trans flag just in case their hateful rhetoric wasn’t clear enough

it’s pretty clear that she doesn’t only target criminal cis men, yes???

and don’t tell me that she might not have known and all that naive bullshit. she knows what she’s doing.

the few men who take advantage of trans people’s struggles should NOT be the talking point on whether they, as a group, deserve rights, love, and acceptance. PERIOD.

the fact that you can’t see that she targets the entire trans community and that you say you don’t support her only because she voiced her opinion publicly, tells me that you do in fact support her, if only she kept her views to herself. so i’m glad you unfollowed me.

as far as her use of stereotypes in HP are concerned, again, you are mistaken. you “don’t think lycanthropy is a metaphor for that” you say, but jkr herself says it is. comparing an illness like HIV/AIDS to being a monster who actively harms others is not okay, despite the author’s intentions. it’s simply a very poor-thought out metaphor.

lastly, jkr may not even have realized that she uses anti-semitic tropes in her work. but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Connor Goldsmith, a literary agent says: “Rowling’s goblins are nakedly anti-Semitic caricatures — a race of gnarled, hook-nosed misers obsessed with gold, who believe they own everything they’ve ever produced and wizards who purchase things only ‘rent’ from them. They appear to run the entire wizarding economy, and trust no one but their own kind. It’s suggested that secret cabals of goblins work to undermine the wizard government. The fact that these creatures appear in a book series which is ostensibly an allegory for the Holocaust is as distressing as it is bizarre; one hopes Rowling didn’t intend to create such a caricature, because it really undermines her project, but intent isn’t really what matters at the end of the day.”

i and many others agree that she did use anti-semitic stereotypes. and there’s plenty of arguments to support our position. do with that what you will. sadly, you seem to make a lot of incoherent excuses about all the unfortunate elements she used in her books.

i’m not by any means saying we should cancel the books and reject them because of all these problematic features. i am saying however that they need to be recognized and discussed, just like jkr’s militant and very evident transphobia. 

i am angry, and we all should, because her views are dangerous and harmful. gaslighting us and saying “go for a jog” simply because we express our very legitimate anger and dissapointment regarding a beloved author who shaped many childrens’ lives and ended up invalidating their very existence, only makes you look like a jerk, not someone with an argument to be taken into account.

[a-rebellious-waffle]

So far the replies to this post have included:

"This is homophobic"

How? My best guess is that this is homophobic because I'm saying that trans women can be lesbians.

The other conclusion is that "lesbians can do dick" is homophobic, despite the fact that AFAB people can be born with penises (I believe this is called de la Chapelle Syndrome. Might be Swyer Syndrome. Can't remember).

My counterargument there is, do we define "lesbian" by the lowest common value? Are we only allowing "gold star" lesbians to use the term lesbian? If no lesbian does dick, and then a lesbian does dick, are they immediately disqualified from ever being a lesbian again? Wait, what about having sex with a strap-on? Does that count as doing dick? You're being incredibly restrictive with your definition. (As an added bonus for me AFAB people with penises already proved this wrong.)

---

"This is anti-Semitic!"

Okay, a better argument can be found here in that I modified a poem written about the Holocaust.

However, I think people are forgetting a few key facts.

1) Jews were not the only targets of the Holocaust. The victims of the Holocaust also included the Romani, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, disabled people, gays, lesbians... and trans people. It was anyone the Nazis didn't like. Jews were the central focus, but they weren't the only ones; that's why you didn't exclusively see yellow Stars of David. Or do you not know about the Pink Triangle?

2) The central theme of the poem First They Came is how the Nazis divided Germany into many small parts. There's a very good film made by the US Department of War in 1943 that was re-released in 1947 called "Don't Be A Sucker" that also touches on this, which I recommend everyone go watch, because I'm going to quote it here:

"[The Nazis] knew they could not conquer a unified country, so they split Germany into smaller groups. They used prejudice as a practical weapon to cripple the nation."

The point of that poem is to describe how minority groups were divided and eliminated, one by one. No one spoke out against it. If they had shown a unified front, they could've stopped the Nazis before Hitler took over, but they began to fight each other instead.

My point in citing that poem was to compare a poem about the world before a genocide to something that has the potential to quickly escalate to genocide.

As an example, Donald Trump, as of date of posting [24 April 2023] has promised to ban gender-affirming care and criminalize being transgender, should be win the 2024 US Presidential campaign—in other words, making our existence a crime. This is very easily comparable to the Nuremberg Laws passed in Nazi Germany, which made it a crime for Jewish people to do things like own stores. Matt Walsh outright advocated for our murder, much like someone else did in a book titled "My Struggle". And, of course, let's not forget the website set up by a state AG for citizens to report trans people to the government. (Shout out to the person who claimed that this was just me being angry about women talking online, seemingly forgetting about anti-trans laws and rhetoric...)

The second definition of the term "genocide", as published in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Edition), is "the systematic killing of a racial or cultural group." It isn't that hard to argue that trans people can be considered part of a cultural group; there are a lot of things that define the trans community as different from other communities. Some would even argue that the trans community is even more distinct than some larger communities. (I will not argue that, because that's not my belief.)

[Image ID: A screenshot of the definition of genocide. It reads: Genocide (noun) 1. The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. 2. The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. 3. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity. End ID/]

In addition, after researching voices arguing for and against the term "trans genocide", I found a lot more genocide scholars saying that it's a real thing than people saying it's not (and even the ones arguing against using "genocide" agreed that it was a crime against humanity). This is why I take issue with people calling this post anti-Semetic. It's not negating or downplaying the impact of the Holocaust, by any means. It's doing the opposite. It's saying, "Please, don't let this happen again."

My point in using that modification of First They Came was to show how these divisions are harming the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. Homophobes won't treat you better because you also hate trans people. They'll accept your help and then stab you in the back.

I want to offer the TERFs that see this an open palm. I honestly don't think you guys are necessarily bad people. What I do think you are is tricked. You've been duped into believing that trans people are your enemies, and then you've been armed and sent off to war. Then, when your opponents fire back, you naturally begin to believe that they really are your enemies.

But, as I said, you've been tricked. You are, probably unintentionally, helping bring about your own destruction. In fighting against trans people, you're fighting on the side of homophobes that will just as happily kill you.

To quote "Don't Be A Sucker" again: "They gambled with other people's liberty, and in doing so, they lost their own."

For that reason, I want to offer you an open palm. You can renounce this path. Sure, trans people aren't going to suddenly be your best friends, but you won't be our enemies. We already have enough of those.

---

The third type of response I saw accused me of not knowing how sexes work. Which, you know, not entirely unfounded. I'm not an expert. And, to top it off, an expert did chime in, which was nice of them.

However, there is this very minor issue. That, uh... doesn't matter.

You're not attracted to sex, you're attracted to gender (well, gender expression, to be exact, but I'll get into that later). You're attracted to what you perceive. As I said previously, we can't see a person's genetic sex at a glance, but we can be attracted at a glance.

There's also another issue present, which is that Swyer and de la Chapelle Syndrome don't just reverse your chromosomes. They also reverse what primary sex organ you have. This means AFAB people being born with a penis and AMAB people being born with a vagina. They're not functional sex organs, but sex isn't defined by if you can reproduce (unless we're defining sex exclusively by the ability to reproduce, which is... degrading... and ignores menopause...). According to one of the people in the replies, sex is defined by the presence or absence of the SRY gene, which isn't... wrong, but I did find an article published in Psychology Today that disagrees and states that it's much more complicated than that. This throws a wrench into attraction exclusively being based on sex.

The following are screenshots taken from a very long reply that I'm segmenting for ease.

It is a hole in my reasoning, yes, but let me explain. By your definition, women who aren't attracted to women are not lesbians.

Non-binary people are non-binary.

That's it.

That's literally my entire point.

Next screenshot:

This is what is known as a "straw man" argument, which intentionally uses a weaker version of the argument one is responding to. Obviously when I wrote this, I meant "sexually attracted to same gender".

Also, uh... it makes perfect sense? It's literally a dictionary definition? You take a prefix, such as "hetero" (opposite), "homo" (same), "a" (no), and add it to the suffix "-sexual" (denoting sexual attraction) to form your word. This forms the basis for how we refer to sexualities; "heterosexual" (attracted to opposite), "homosexual" (attracted to same), "asexual" (attracted to none)...

This also invalidates this argument later on:

---

"Sexuality being fluid is actually homophobic, because then therapists can just say 'try harder to be straight'." This was an interesting one, because I can do exactly the opposite.

That is, I can say, "It's fine if you think you're a lesbian, and then later you realize you're not. Sexuality is fluid. You weren't less of a lesbian for changing your sexuality, and you're not less bisexual for being a lesbian previously."

It can be used to help, and to harm.

Similarly, your "set in stone" logic can be just as emotionally devastating to someone who had heterosexual sex, didn't like it, and then had their gay awakening. By your logic, they can no longer be part of the community they now belong to, all because of something they didn't know.

---

Perhaps I should've elaborated. These are methods by which we alter our gender expression—that is, how people perceive our gender. I never claimed these change our gender as we see it, internally; they change how others see our gender, which I directly stated isn't necessarily correct.

Is it homophobic to say that we can change how we're seen? Not anymore than saying we can change our clothes. Is it homophobic to say that how we identify and how we express our gender don't always line up? Well, is a woman wearing a suit homophobic? No, of course not. Is it homophobic to say that others might see how we express ourselves and not correctly guess our identities? Debatable, but it is an unfortunate reality.

Furthermore, yes, many stereotypes are tools by which women are oppressed... but stereotypes are also two other things. Firstly, they are the baseline by which we view a group. Secondly, they are not all created equal. Some stereotypes are worse than others. For instance, according to stereotypes, women paint their nails. According to stereotypes, they also stay in the kitchen. Which of these is more impactful in your day-to-day? Which of these causes more harm?

Stereotypes are best described with the phrase "usually". A woman *usually* has long hair. A man *usually* has short hair. See what I mean? This means that, in order to alter our gender expression, we must play with stereotypes to better conform with the baseline. What's a baseline woman? A perfectly stereotypical one. Does that actually exist? No. Do the general trends exist? Yes. Can we therefore take these trends and use the expectations they generate in order to change our gender expression? Yes.

I feel like I'm taking a lot of words to say something simple, which is: Yes, stereotypes exist. No, they aren't always bad. Yes, some people have more complex gender expressions than others. No, this doesn't make them any less of who they are. Yes, some people have gender expressions that aren't what we expect of their gender. No, this doesn't mean they aren't their gender.

---

YOU LITERALLY REDUCED BEING A WOMAN TO HAVING A VAGINA, AND THEN YOU CLAIMED IT'S NOT REDUCTIVE?! WHAT?!

Okay, let me explain.

Earlier, you defined women as people who were born with vaginas. Fine. Wrong, but fine.

Now, you've done this.

What you just did was you defined all women by having a vagina. You then added everything else, claimed that wasn't part of being a woman, and then said you didn't define womanhood as having a vagina.

Do I need to explain that further? Like, okay, sure. That is liberating. But it's also doing exactly what you claim it isn't.

Furthermore, you know what else is liberating? Being able to freely express things like being a woman purely by choice instead of prerequisite. Isn't that the entire point here? That we define ourselves?

---

Another example of a straw man argument.

Firstly, as I said, everything has a gender, they're just not male and female. If it can be referred to with pronouns, it has a gender. It has to.

All pronouns are gendered. They just aren't all gendered as masculine or feminine.

We're attracted to gender expression, which is how we determine what others see as our gender. For the sake of simplicity, we make this into "attracted to x gender" instead of "attracted to x gender expression" (though when people say that they're attracted to a particular feature, that's a way of saying they're attracted to a particular form of gender expression).

In other words, we're attracted to particular traits, which usually coincide with what we expect of particular genders, which makes it seem like we're attracted to that gender, which makes us define ourselves as attracted to that gender because listing the traits is exhaustive.

---

Wait, so womanhood isn't defined by having a vagina?

---

And one final one (no screenshot because I'm tired):

"Saying queer is homophobic because I take offense to it, and I'm gay." Okay, great. So am I. I, personally, do not care if you call me queer, and frankly I think widespread usage of the term is a good thing, since it deprives homophobes of a weapon to be used against us. Insults only work if you care about them. That's why, in order to reclaim the word queer, queer people started responding to being called queer by saying, "Hell yes I am!"

---

Anyways, I'm done for now. Remember: don't be a sucker.

Alright, let's go point by point, @ancientdriftwood.

Paragraph One.

Firstly: Sexual attraction is not attraction to a sex, it's attraction that makes you want to have sex with someone.

Secondly: Homo means "same", yes, but the suffix "-sexual" does not actually mean sex. It actually denotes that the word it's used in is a sexuality. Hence, "homosexual" would actually translate as something along the lines of "sexually attracted to same".

Thirdly: Do me a favour and define what "male" and "female" are for me? Because it's not determined by chromosomes, or else there's at least three sexes. Klinefelter Syndrome results in cells having XXY chromosomes, one more than normal. Swyer Syndrome and de la Chappelle Syndrome give the other sex's chromosomes to people who will develop into men or women; i.e. XX chromosomes in AMAB men, XY chromosomes in AFAB women. These are abnormalities, yes, but if you have 1,000 instances of the letter A 1,000 instance of the letter B, and one instance of the letter C in a dataset, you still have three different letters.

Fourthly: Lesbians are, in fact, attracted to gender. That's why women in relationships with AFAB non-binary people aren't called lesbians—unless we admit that "lesbian" doesn't mean "women who love women", which destroys your flawed point.

There's also a deeper problem present, which is that you're saying that gender is social, but sexuality is somehow independent of that social aspect.

To explain, allow me to begin with a few things about gender. Gender is the social perception of your sex, yes. However, everything has a gender. See, gender is chiefly a grammatical thing that determines what pronouns are used for something. A rock, for instance, does not have a sex, but it does have a gender; I call this gender something along the lines of "null". Since we perceive that the rock doesn't have a sex, we automatically assign it a null gender and start using "it" as the pronoun for said rock; i.e. "The rock got in my shoe, but I removed it from my shoe."

Since we communicate to each other via language, and language has grammar in it, we do something similar for people. If you see a person wearing a bridal dress that shows off a pronounced chest, you might assume they're a woman and therefore they have a female gender. This isn't necessarily accurate, but it is understandable.

However, we can alter how people see us. We can therefore alter how we present our gender by, say, cutting our hair, wearing a binder to compress our chest, and so on. These actions change other's perception of us, and accordingly, their perception of our gender.

Now, as I said before, sexuality is determined by social perceptions. Here's the thing. We don't know what sex someone is inherently. It's just not something we can know; no one has magnifying-glass eyes that can see chromosomes in the body on the fly. All we can know is how someone presents themselves. Therefore, if someone presents as a woman, a lesbian isn't going to have zero attraction to them until they hold up their birth certificate that says they're AFAB—they're going to see a hot woman and go "Damn, she's hot! I want to date her!"

Similarly, if you see two female-presenting people kissing, you're naturally going to assume it's probably two women kissing, and then you're going to assume they're lesbians. You're not going to demand to see proof they're AFAB before assuming this.

Fifthly: So, question: Are trans men, in your opinion, women? Because by your logic, a trans man dating a woman is a lesbian. But, trans men can have phalloplatsies; this gives them a penis. Therefore, a trans man who's had a phalloplatsy is a lesbian who does dick.

The other option here is that trans men are, in fact, men, which means that trans women are, in fact, women, because you're admitting that you can transition from male to female, which logically means you can transition from female to male. After all, doctors don't just carry out phalloplatsies; they also do vaginoplasties, which give people vaginas.

So, do lesbians do dick? Or are transfemmes women? (The answer here is "yes" and "yes", since if transfemmes are women, and women can be lesbians, some women will have dicks and therefore be lesbians who do dicks!)

Otherwise, you're just assuming gender is based on genitalia, which, well... I think we can agree that reducing womanhood to having a vagina is insulting.

Second Paragraph

Ah. Chief. One brief thing you don't realize. A slur only has as much power as you say it does. Every time you use the phrase "Q-slur" to mean queer, you're not just empowering homophobes when they use it on us, but you're also spitting on the efforts of all the people who fought to reclaim it for LGBTQ+ people.

Lesbians, gays, bis, transfemme and transmascs... we're all here, and we're all queer!

Aside from that... yes, we do need legal definitions for these things. Here's the issue. In the absence of things inside a legal textbook, we default to dictionary definitions. You're just trying to restrict them to sex instead of gender—which means you're actually weakening our legal defenses.

Queer labels will always have a bit of vagueness. It's an unfortunate reality that not everything is cut and dry. However, this vagueness also gives us freedom to define ourselves how we like. Not everything has to be cut and dry, after all! It's not like there's one true way to be queer. Identity is fluid, after all, and the law is basically set in stone. It's hard to make the two sides play nice with one another, like how it's difficult to make oil and water mix.

Third Paragraph

What are you... sis. Sister, what are you on about. How is child labour law and military enlistment age requirements the same thing as having legal definitions for LGBTQ+ people? That's apples and oranges! Age is something set in stone! We all agree on how time flows swiftly and in one direction. It's not like sexuality or gender in that you cannot change your age by your own free will! You will always be one year older than last year, one month older than last month, one minute older than you were a minute ago!

Your TERFism is not just harming people, but it's harming your cause. Like, you want better rights for lesbians? You know what would help that? Having more lesbians! What to know what'll help with that? Dropping this TERF rhetoric!

I want to end this with a modification of the very good poem First They Came, originally written by Martin Niemöller.

First they came for the transgenders.

But I did not speak out, because I was not transgender.

Then they came for the asexuals.

But I did not speak out, because I was not asexual.

Then they came for the bisexuals.

But I did not speak out, because I was not bisexual.

Then they came for the gay men.

But I did not speak out, for I was not a gay man.

Then they came for the lesbians.

And there was no one left to speak for me.