#are horribly misogynistic and transphobic

[barbed-werecat]

I admit that I worded my post wrong at the start. I have heard of transphobic trans people, usually transmed/exorsexist.

But yeah this was mainly about people on this site (most of the time trans mascs, intersex and enby people asking for recognition and for people to acknowledge the harassment we receive that's specific to us. And the trans fems who are on our side who get marked too)

even here people immediately assume I'm ignoring the transmisogyny problem, I'm not. It's horrible.

But it seems asking for trans masc rep and support and acknowledging the unique struggle trans mascs deal with is apparently trans misogynistic.

Thank you for your comment though. And I agree.

Before this post I didn't even know who blaire was. I knew of Calvin garrah only

If someone is trans, they shouldn't be marked by shinigami eyes.

like straight up, no notes, no nothing

"they believe in transandrophobia"

doesn't matter, even if i dont agree or if i dont like that person. doesn't matter

shinigmai eyes are for TRANSPHOBES, full stop. they hate trans people? they're marked red.

An intersex person talking about the struggles of sex and gender and their own issues and calling out perisex people for making wrong claims is NOT transphobic.

A trans masc person complaining about how they're being treated by the community because they have a beard and deep voice, doesn't mean they're a transphobe

Almost every red highlighted trans person i have seen on here hasnt even said anything transphobic either. but because people do not like certain groups in the trans community, it means they MUST mark them and compare them to the people who want me dead because my gender and sex are not alligned.

[agirlking]

The thing that frustrates me so much about the readings of TLOU is how people push their own morality and feelings on it and decide that is what the story was saying and what Joel was thinking or feeling canonically. "Humanity isn't worth saving if it's at the cost of a kid's life" "The cure wouldn't work with what they're describing because scientifically it wouldn't work" etc etc. Joel didn't stop and think about grand morality about saving humanity or not before he did it, he thought of his own feelings about his daughter. 

And fiction uses inaccurate science all the time and it's taken at face value as being canon, so to speak. The game said the cure would work, and even if not, Joel had no scientific knowledge. He never once says anything about it not working, or asking or implying he thought it wouldn't. Joel's motives were selfish, it's not some commentary on the morality of killing Ellie to make a cure.

People thought that because it made them feel better about a sad ending, to not have to question if what Joel did was right or totally wrong. I completely understand Joel's actions, I'm not arguing that. I'm just so frustrated how people see the final shot of the game being Ellie looking heartbroken over her trust being utterly betrayed because deep down she KNOWS he was lying, and they go 'woo hoo happy found family ending! Joel is a hero!' and then attack the second game which I honestly really really love.

[trandoshan]

i've seen multiple posts about how "trump's executive orders aren't really going to affect trans men. it's all about hurting trans women. men, it's up to us to protect our sisters!" and i really need everyone to get a fucking grip.

this slew of conservative legislation -- mandating unchangeable natal sex, striking down no-fault divorce, criminalizing abortion by any means -- among a million other knives to all our throats -- is fully intended to enshrine "female" as a class of people that can legally be raped into domestic slavery.

trans men are not protected from violence by being trans or being men; we are made targets for it.

[milfbro]

This episode of house was incredible. Weird symptoms, no one puked blood, no lombar punction. Cameron anally torturing a patient on purpose. Lesbian couple. The bubonic plague. The tension in this episode was that the sick lesbian was planning to dump her gf but was waiting until after she took half her liver in a transplant to tell her. And then it was all tragic, the healthy gf thinking they're gonna grow old together but actually she was gonna get dumped.

BUT UH-OH PLOT TWIST! She knew she was gonna get dumped but donated the liver so her girlfriend can never leave her out of guilt. 10/10. Best episode so far

[manie-sans-delire-x]

TRAs havent accomplished a lot but what they have really succeeded at is making enemies out of people who were at least partially "on their side" (and many who still are despite all the abuse because theyre good people.)

Whats a great way to create more enemies? Repeatedly tell someone that they are your enemy.

[littlebitfurtheron]

for anyone wondering why there's a women's league of chess in the first place considering it is a purely intellectual game, women are actually completely allowed to play in the regular league, it's just that little to none of them do because when they do so they get horrifically targeted and harassed by a vocal part of the chess community.

[althaeaofficinalis]

I do not fit into Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing.

The story of my life is not digestible and easy, like Flying Witch or whatever slice-of-life queernorm story is lauded today. I am not "beyond" everything, I am not a shy person with long-ago issues, everything will not be simple and sunny for me for all days forever. And I am fine with the reality of that.

Pretending that's not an indulgent fantasy, the way I see people do, is silly beyond belief.

You're not morally righteous for preferring soft stories. You're just another person who prefers not to see what some of us live through. And that's fine, if that's the fiction you consume; it is a preference, as many things are, built on you and your life experiences and your tolerances. I certainly can't say I don't sometimes indulge.

But coming up with reasons to turn your nose up at fiction dealing with trauma and trauma recovery, especially when it's messy, that validate your self-righteousness is fucking lying. You're not "more feminist" because you refuse to look at a story working through the messy sordid reality of misogyny. You're not better for this. And the minute you think you are, you have become yet another person making a face at my life, saying, "I'm done talking about this, I don't like it," at what is supposed to be my friends helping me grieve.

[communistkenobi]

if we want to talk about where trans men tend to be overrepresented in transphobic discourse, it’s in relation to scaremongering media profiles of detransitioners, framing trans men as misunderstood women with internalised misogyny who have mutilated our bodies and are now left ‘ruined’ because of HRT and surgery. This is used to argue for policies that restrict access to trans healthcare, especially for minors (notice how often we are talked about as “young girls”!) putting a ‘sympathetic’ face to transgender hysteria by talking about the “victims” of transgenderism. But this is still an incomplete picture without accounting for transmisogyny, as trans women are the “perpetrators” of this victimisation, convincing “confused young women” to cut off their breasts and take testosterone. It centres around the ‘corruption’ of femininity, as trans men forsake our ‘natural’ femaleness and trans women as ‘appropriating’ it.

This is why Matt Walsh, JKR, and other prominent transphobic figures asks the question “what is a woman?” and not “what is a man?”, it’s why Posie Parker advocates for armed cis men to go into women’s bathrooms to “protect women from men invading women’s spaces,” its why terfs are so fixated on trans women as ur-misogynists, it’s why right wing politicians like Pierre Poilievre & the Conservative Party of Canada focus their ire on blocking trans women from public spaces.

Saying this is not a denial of trans men as victims of transphobia (hello! I am a frequent one!) and its endlessly frustrating that these conversations get derailed into “well what about MY experience where XYZ horrible thing happened to me” as if the conversation about transphobia should only ever remain in the realm of interpersonal violence and victimisation. It’s very handy to stay in that arena because the only rebuttal to that tactic is to deny this random person’s experiences or “ignore their lived reality.” But I’m not talking about experience! Transphobia is a structural force in the world which means we don’t actually need to rely on individual accounts of violence to understand it. taking stock of that structure is only a “threat” to “trans masc voices” if you think structural discussions of oppression are de facto “misandrist”

[maxdibert]

The nickname “Snivellus” derives from the word “snivel,” which means crybaby. So, Snivellus was basically a way of mocking the fact that Severus might show his emotions—that instead of toughing it out like a stereotypical, macho, strong, hairy-chested man, he cried. I don’t think I need to explain why this nickname is problematic—any nickname used to bully someone is problematic—but a nickname that also references a supposed weakness, stemming from the expectations of a patriarchal society for men to display “unmanly” behavior typical of “weak” men, is not just problematic due to the bullying itself but also because of the misogynistic implications it carries. Because yes, misogyny and hegemonic gender roles also affect men by demanding certain traits from them to validate them socially. And I know the Marauders lived in the 1970s, and that Rowling is one of the worst when it comes to gender issues. But I find it quite ironic how Marauders Stans or Slytherin Skittles, who have built their trash fandom and constant Snape-bashing around the topic of LGBTQ+ themes, have the audacity to mock Snape using a nickname that directly attacks gender nonconformity and justifies a toxic, traditional masculinity that shames men who cry or show emotions, labeling them as less valid.

The Marauders weren’t social justice warriors, and James and Sirius, in particular, embodied the classic values of male success through the performance of stereotypical “macho” characteristics: as leaders, as “alphas” of the pack. Both are violent; both are cocky men who try to stand out and mark their territory. Both exhibit behaviors that have typically been excused in men just because they are men, such as abusive and reckless behavior. Their nickname for Severus stems from the idea that showing emotions—especially crying—if you are a man, is a reason for ridicule and mockery because men don’t cry. Men are supposed to be strong, puff out their chests, and keep going because that’s what men do. It’s a misogynistic and archaic mindset that continues to be perpetuated in social models and relationships to this day. And I find it incredibly hypocritical that certain people who claim to hate J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe then go on to appropriate the horribly sexist nicknames she created for a group of heterosexual men embodying toxic masculinity to bully another man for not performing the traditional masculine model expected of someone like him.

Because Severus wasn’t a “macho”. Severus was a studious introvert with a more passive character who didn’t fit into the masculine vision of the time. Everything about him, including his appearance, demeanor, and interests, is unmasculine from a hegemonic perspective given the historical context. But these people don’t care. They’re so limited, so ignorant, and so cynical that they not only ignore these kinds of nuances but even find it funny to reproduce insults that any real-life James Potter would probably have used against them.

Make no mistake: James Potter and Sirius Black wouldn’t have been your friends. They would have tortured you as much, if not more, than Snape. And that’s the most pathetic part of their fandom, unfortunately.

[millaniumcat]

"But we need to separate the art from the artist..."

NO. STOP.

"Separating the art from the artist" and "death of the author" does not mean what most people think it means, and i am so sick of people using this as an excuse for an artists horrible behaviour. Yes, i am looking at you, J.K Rowling and Till Lindemann (and so many more.)

"Death of the author" is a LITERARY THEORY that argues that the meaning of a piece of art is determined by the readers interpretation, not the authors intention. It is a TOOL used by LITERARY STUDIES to determine the meaning of a piece of art.

It is not a good argument in an everyday discussion about problematic authors. And it is certainly not an excuse for people to keep supporting artists (and art!) that are queerphobic, transphobic, anti-feminisitc, antisemitic and misogynistic.

And no, "separation of artist and art" is not a reason to ignore the problematic views of the author that are INHERENTLY INCOPORATED in the art.

DO NOT EVER use "death of the author" or "separate art from artist" as an excuse. It is not.

[mr-ribbit]

this isn't meant to soften or reduce the objective transmisogyny + additional hate action going into this, but since the people running these harassment campaigns are acting like they're literal baby children who need their hands held to understand anything, maybe this needs to be said:

what you're doing and how you treat trans women on this website is fucking MEAN. if you want to sit there and honestly convince yourself that you're *not* a transmisogynist or a transphobe or a misogynist or any other type of bigot - like if you genuinely believe that and are confused why people are calling you these things - then maybe we need to start from little primary colored building blocks and tell you that you're being fucking mean and rude and actively harmful to real people who read the things you say. im not sure why we need to start off with "trans women have feelings" - just kidding I know exactly why we need to - but maybe you don't.

no matter who you're talking to, do you honestly think accusing someone you do not know of being a pedophile, en masse, behind their back /and/ in a public forum, is a reasonable way to treat someone for making a tumblr post about video games or political opinions? even if you strongly disagree with the post, you think someone deserves to be treated like that by people they don't know? take a second please and sincerely imagine how that would feel. wouldn't it be scary? wouldn't you wonder who the people were who thought this about you - if they're people you know - if they're just a few people that will continue saying mean things to you forever or if there are thousands of people who choose to dedicate their time and energy specifically to making you feel bad? if you accidentally write a post in the wrong tone or unknowingly interact with a shitty person, that there are uncountable people that will keep track of that just to hurt you later? that's fucking horrifying

and to zone in on what's specifically happening here: do you think randomly accusing people of being pedophiles or sexual abusers has no effect on them? like a lot of you tend to excuse yourself in these discussions by saying "I didn't actually see the context of what they were saying" or "I didn't see that they apologized already" or "I didn't actually understand the post was a joke" or whatever other kneejerk response to make sure *you* aren't seen as a bad person. do you realize that makes you look even meaner? you didn't bother to actually follow up on a thought you had about someone before sending them hateful messages or making public accusations about them? those actions are harmful whether or not you like the victim at the end of the day.

believe it or not some people you send this shit to are survivors of abuse themselves, or have their own historical personal reasons to be weighing in on a touchy subject. when you baselessly decide it's ok to call someone an abuser of any type, that person is probably *also* disgusted by whatever horrible shit you're accusing them of. as someone that hates these things as much as you do in order to attack someone for them: what do you think it's like to have complete strangers think that about you? how many eggshells would you walk on if random people thought so little of you that they were ok doing this?

it's mean. it's heinous, cruel bullying, and if you genuinely think you are not doing it from a place of transmisogyny or hatefuk bias over the victims' identity, then you need to understand that that's not an excuse. "i didn't even know she was trans" ok, it was still mean to call her a pedophile with 200 of your closest friends in public. "im trans so it can't be transphobia" ok it was still mean to assume someone was endorsing abuse when they were talking about being accused of abuse. "i didn't see the post where she said it was a joke" ok it was still mean to actively harass someone without bothering to look into the full context.

at the end of the day, yes, obviously I still think you're all transmisogynist assholes who are clearly willing to gang up on a woman who has nothing to do with your problems simply because she dared to speak on them. i think you're bigoted and unwilling to examine that if it means giving up your vitriol against someone who doesn't like your favorite video game or whatever excuse of the week. but like even if you were just doing it for love of the hate game, it's fucking weird heinous shit and i hope you're happy having that be a central part of your life

to be clear: im not transfemme and if I'm overstepping or talking over anyone please let me know. im not speaking for anyone's actual experiences except my own, which is the experience of being angry at how much literal bullying and harassment I see excused on this so-called progressive queer blogging website

[junkiepunkie]

people who get mad that marauders fans aren’t listening to canon are fucking idiots btw.

like gee, I’m sorry I wasn’t listening to a racist transphobic misogynist who named her black character Kingsley Shacklebolt, made her Irish character blow everything up and have an alcohol problem aged eleven, used werewolves as a metaphor for aids and promptly made one of two major werewolves a villainous maniac (Greyback), called her Chinese character Cho Chang (WHICH IS TWO SURNAMES BY THE WAY), and decided to have her one canonically gay couple be in an unhealthy abusive relationship. I’m real sorry I don’t abide by her storylines.

“In the books all death eaters were evil-“

yeah, and James was a bully, and Draco was a horrible person, and Sirius and Remus both also bullied Snape!! I don’t see you groaning when people say James was a good person. Also… I cannot overstate the fact that if you’re using the argument that Regulus was a bad person cause he was a death eater allow me to remind you that he BETRAYED THE DEATHEATERS!!!!

HE WAS LITERALLY THE FIRST TO TRY AND KILL VOLDEMORT BY DESTROYING A HORCRUX!!!!

that makes him one of the good guys!!! Snape was a death eater I don’t see anyone pulling this “he’s a villain!!” Shit on him.

[the-owl-tree]

every time i see a younger fan wish they were part of the earlier fandom i think about how horribly homophobic and transphobic early 2010s fandom was and how insanely misogynistic the 2015-2018 era got. it's always sucked, but it's also improved. fandom is like ouroboros.

[youngpettyqueen]

the thing everybody and I mean everybody needs to understand is that you cant succumb to bigotry and dehumanization even when youre dealing with the worst, most terrible people. you cant. you cant let yourself be convinced that anybody "deserves" it. you can criticize and even hate people without throwing bigotry and dehumanization around. and you need to. you need to. I am not saying you need to defend horrible people because god im not but I am saying you need to be aware of when youre spouting bigotry and dehumanizing rhetoric and you need to be critical of yourself, and of others, because you could be the most left-leaning person around but you are not immune to being a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, a transphobe, an ableist, any kind of bigot just so you can throw insults and feel like the bigger person

[aretheyqueer]

always kills me to see the victim complexes that transphobes have

if I dare talk about transandrophobia again... this is part of it. trans men are discriminated against for being trans men specifically. in order to understand it fully, you have to actually read a few scientific articles about gender incongruence, but since these people don't know what that is, they resort to calling every trans man and nonbinary afab person misogynistic and narcissistic.

like I promise you that your friend doesn't identify as nonbinary because they hate you specifically and think women are horrible etc etc. stop thinking of yourself as a victim in every single situation. you won't die. your transmasc friend isn't going to destroy feminism. he just has a condition/whatever-you-wanna-call-it that makes him inherently uncomfortable with being viewed as a woman.

imagine telling someone you're a trans man and they immediately go "OH SO YOU HATE WOMEN? YOU WANT ME TO DIE? YOU THINK YOU'RE SO SPECIAL? FUCKING NARCISSIST." like jesus christ calm down

[that-one-kiddo-in-the-back]

Oh boo-hoo

You poor woman being forced to face the consequences for writing child porn, raping your sister, being transphobic to other trans people, fetishistizing black women, lying about your race, shipping a real minor with an adult, abusing your ex girlfriends, grooming minors, being homophobic to other gay people, being misogynistic to other women, being antisemitic to Jewish people, calling a black man an idiot for saying his own slur the processed to say said slur, pushed ableist shit on autistic people, and the list goes fucking on.

God it must be so fucking hard for you. I can't imagine the horrible abuse you've gone through.

Question for Lily Orchard fans: Why do you like her, and why do you look up to her? I have to know because I stopped watching her when she said her favorite episode of Family Guy was about Meg standing up for herself and then going back to being a punching bag for the family and being called brave for doing so. How can you like someone like Lily orchard?