#aside from knowing from experience that politics of women and men are not that different on any topic that isn't women's rights

[heniareth]

It's interesting to note how the Tabris Origin, which involves a wedding, kidnapping and attempted sexual harassment, and fighting your way through an estate full of guards, is the Origin where gender plays a huge role in what story you experience. M!Tabris will always storm the castle coming to the rescue of his cousin and his betrothed, while F!Tabris will always have to fight her way out because the men in her life can't fully protect her (Nelaros dies, Soris literally hands her the sword, Cyrion is powerless to stop the abduction. Okay, this may be a little unfair to Soris who does fight side by side with Tabris and counsels caution the same way regardless of Tabris's gender). I'd go so far as to say that Tabris is the only Origin where the gender of your PC has a definite impact on the story.

TLDR to the rant in the tags: Tabris is constrained on all sides by being an elf, by their gender, in part by their family, and by society at large (both the Alienage and the wider city).

[gencrittransvestite]

This person actually sort of notices an issue with blackpilled biological determinism, just uses it for their own agenda.

There are tangible differences in lives of women depending on time and place, and OOP literally says this in her post. It wouldn't be possible if men were naturally predisposed to usurp power and be misogynistic, considering men being half of population.

Obviously these changes happened not because men suddenly decided to stop doing atrocities - it happened because women actually have and always had power and because human behaviour is nearly never innate.

Which is radfeminism 101, but OOP has weird framework where women can have any rights only because of laws and also where men are sole rulers of the world, but in this case, who is enforcing said laws that protect women?

Her thesis ("yes all men") is true and there is one good insight in the notes, but this level of doomerism is counterproductive and I don't think that it's healthy.

[velvetvexations]

Okay offering a bit of an alternative perspective, let me establish rn im not a fan of tme/tma either 👍

So i think it gets lost on people that tme/tma was coined SPECIFICALLY to describe intracommunity dynamics, like cis people were simply. Not factored into the coining of the terms, or the topics it was intended to discuss.

Honestly, i think the idea that transfeminine people being oft excluded from integrated community with transmasc individuals is grounded in reality, but it absolutely requires intersectionality for it to be legitimized and elaborated on in a meaningful way. Which, well, transradfems dont like intersectionality very much at all.

And speaking as a nonwhite perisex afab person. The trans women and fems who get excluded from trans men and masc circles are excluded for the same reasons poc trans men/mascs are excluded from those spaces. And you know the people i see doing much of the excluding, whether they declare themselves allies to transfems or not, are middle to upper class white transmascs. Speaking from personal experience, there does seem to be a demographic implicitly ignorant of the transfems they are in community with, and a lot of it stems from what i observe as a sort of inability or unwillingness to reject the politics of the communities they were raised in (lots of liberalism and cultural feminism). They sort of unconsciously reinforce socialization segregated by gender.

It’s a reproduction of a general pattern of thinking you see with cis gay people, who also tend to be white: i cant be that bigoted because im x. Obviously, this is also an issue with white transfems, but not in the same ways as they are with transmascs, and i think anyone who sweeps this issue under the rug are being dishonest with themselves. But my point stands that, within the demographic, certain groups of transmascs can be afforded a specific form of privilege, not because they *are* transmasc, but because theyre *not transfem*. Because at its core, that is privilege— not being subject to certain types of treatment, or being less prone to certain conditions, on the basis of not possessing socially marked traits you dont have control over.

Transradfem discourse fails in that it cant decide whether it truly wants to be about intracommunity discussion or not. Whether it treats transmisogyny as a grand or local narrative depends entirely on what’s convenient to argue a specific point. The only thing consistent about their worldview is that transfems are at the bottom, dehumanized, abused, and cast aside always, with no room for any nuance, because to acknowledge situations in which such totalizing logic fails can only ever be an invalidation of their trauma.

And perhaps the most important thing that should be kept in mind when talking about these things is that other trans people are hardly ever the enemy. Trans people with differing viewpoints on intracommunity relations are not the same as sellouts like blaire white or brianna wu who do the “fuck you got mine” shit. This goes for the transradfems who constantly talk down to “transandrobros”, but it also applies to some of us in that we cant let a vocal minority sway our perceptions of the majority. Most transfems dont give two craps about this.

I do not view "not being a transfem" as a privilege for other trans people, regardless of any nuance or moderation one may take that view with. You may not be subject to some extremely specific behaviors, but to call it "privilege" when one faces oppression on that same axis is highly misleading at best. Exclusion of transfems by transmascs is not worse or more pervasive of an issue than the reverse.

I'm also not a fan of how often intercommunity discourse gets boiled down to The Whites Are At It Again, especially because transradfems are often saying that about transandrophobia believers. Plenty of white transmascs are also excluded simply for their masculinity and to say all (including presumably white) transfems are treated like PoC trans men is, I feel, very dismissive and inaccurate.

[highfantasy-soul]

So I need to get something off my chest about 'writing' and what a show is trying to do vs if the writing is the best to show that.

I haven't seen this complaint so much on Tumblr, but it has been brought up several times in a Discord server I'm in and I don't think there is the best place to address it (it might be taken as too political or an attack against specific people) but I really really needed to write out how I'm feeling about it.

So a massive complaint in this Discord is that the writing of the Acolyte is bad. The ones making this criticism claim that they like the ideas behind the show, but the execution with the writing is terrible and they need to get a whole new writing team for season 2.

So. Hmm. How to not get too in my feelings about that.

Let's take a look at who the writers are. We have:

3 men - 2 of which are men of color, the last I don't know enough about to say if he's part of a specific marginalized identity or not

and we have 7 women - Leslye who is openly queer, 3 black women, an asian woman, a trans woman and activist, and another who I again, don't know enough about to say if she's a part of a specific marginalized identity (other than her femininity) or not.

I didn't do deep dives on them, they're writers, so it's kind of hard to specifically find out 'hey, do you personally have a lot of experience with colonialism/religious trauma?' BUT I think that just baseline seeing how many women, people of color, and queer people there are on the writing staff and the way I could see so many extremely nuanced and real things on screen that I personally know about gives me a good idea about their own experiences/knowledge about such subjects.

Despite the claim that 'they like what the story is going for', the understanding of how the writers are telling that story isn't translating to everyone. I have a little suspicion as to what unites the people who 'don't get' the writing despite claiming to like what the show was going for. Kind of like how people 'liked what the civil rights movement was about, but those leaders and their methods? Get those out of here and accomplish the goals in a different way'. Or reading a classic and having no context for who wrote it or when the story was written and trying to judge it based on your own very limited understanding and claiming it's "bad" because you, personally, are just not aware of anything outside of your own world view.

It's important to be able to identify where your own understanding might be lacking - and acknowledging that just because YOU don't 'get it' doesn't mean that the writing is BAD. It just means... you don't get it. Personally, I don't get every single show made for a very specific audience - especially racialized comedies specifically for the race the writer/performer is. As an example, Dave Chapelle (horrendous transphobia aside) wrote a great deal of his material for his very specific audience of Black Americans. I personally, as a not-Black person, wasn't sure how to feel about some of his jokes - but what I DIDN'T do was say that he was bad and 'I get that he's making fun of his own community, but he should do it in a different way, maybe get a different writer'. Because I'm not the one equipped to judge that. I acknowledge that his comedy is outside my wheelhouse and honestly, for Chapelle's case when it comes to his racial jokes, I simply remove myself from the equation and just look to other Black people and how they react to his comedy to see if he's stepped over a line. (Also, when it comes to comedy, as he himself pointed out, some white people were laughing a little TOO hard at his jokes - I think that's mainly an issue with comedy and poking fun at yourself only to have someone not in your 'group' not take it as friendly ribbing but rather more malicious - and so he dialed it back).

Comedy is a bit different than any other media - I do think that comedy requires a lot more knowledge of the subject matter to know when the person is exaggerating, critiquing, or affectionately ribbing that is pretty important to know before internalizing what's said in the show. If you're not aware of that stuff, you might hear a stand-up routine and internalize a lot of really harmful stereotypes so I think it's ok to step away from comedy that isn't "for you" in a way that I don't think is particularly great for ALL types of media that isn't "for you".

With romance stories - I just don't get why a character would make all their decisions focused around getting a romantic partner, maybe I actively dislike watching/reading about that, but what I'm NOT going to do is say Jane Austen is a bad writer. I can point out things I disliked aside from the romance aspect or even larger writing critiques, but I'm not going to say that 'I see what she was going for, but get a different writer because I didn't get it'. Those stories were intensely personal to her and many people see themselves in the characters she wrote. Just because *I* don't get their motivations doesn't mean others don't.

So, examples aside, I think it's incredibly important that before we say 'the writing was bad', think about if maybe it's just that you don't have the meta understanding of the groups being highlighted in the story. It does give me the ick when people say to 'replace the writing table' on The Acolyte when the story trying to be told is of marginalized groups interacting with massive colonial institutions and the generational trauma that causes - and when you look at the writers....they are part of the groups affected by those issues, and the ones who are saying 'replace them'....aren't (largely).

When you 'don't get' something in media, especially if that media is telling the stories of groups you don't belong to, go to see what those groups are saying. There have been articles written about The Acolyte from the points of view of marginalized groups and meta posted around about how these irl subjects are being handled. In my opinion, as someone a part of such effected groups, I think the writers have done an incredible job with the show.

The main issue I think (good faith) people have is that DISNEY didn't give the show more time to tell its story, but then they lay the issues at the feet of the writers for 'not explaining enough' - but the things they want explained, largely I find are things that...were explained enough if you know the basics of colonization, missionaries, and generational trauma.

Other complaints I've seen boil down to "the show should have told me everything in order, clearly, and told me what to think about it and each of the characters - because I was left guessing, instead of using my own brain to think about it, I have decided it's bad writing because everything wasn't fed to me in a straightforward way" which again, isn't a fault of the writing, it's a flaw in the way you THINK all shows need to hand-hold you. Just because a show doesn't spoon-feed you the story and character motivations, doesn't mean the writing is bad.

Finally, I've seen critiques of the writing (and story) to the effect of 'it's a Star Wars story - it NEEDS to fit into the Star Wars box/expectations and if it doesn't, that means it's bad writing' - which again, kills diversity. You want surface-level inclusion where "yay! It's a woman doing bombings now! Cheer for her!" rather than "Look, it's a woman doing war-crimes and we're pointing out that war crimes are STILL wrong and here's other marginalized people fighting against that!"

So before claiming 'the writers need to be replaced', take a step back and look at why you feel that way, take a look at who the writers are and what story they were trying to tell, and first consider: maybe you just aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject matter. And just because it's not 'baby's first colonizer story', doesn't mean the writing is bad. Maybe you aren't the center of the universe for once and maybe its OK for you to feel a little behind in understanding - it just means there's new stuff for you to learn! Which is a good thing!

Obligatory explanation that all this doesn't mean that you can't critique the writing or that if you critique the writing that means you 100% are who I'm talking to in this post. All I'm saying is that maybe before having the knee-jerk reaction 'get rid of the writers', take a look at it from this perspective to see if you 'not understanding' isn't on the writers, it's on you and your life experiences not preparing you for such a story told in this way.

[possiblyunhinged]

Okay, here’s my possibly unpopular opinion: when white women on TikTok go after other white women who vote for Trump, it feels kind of disingenuous—as if they’re shocked, when we all know exactly why those women voted that way... At least if we allow ourselves to truly think about the value systems we're brought up with.

I truly believe that it’s tied to how much we, as white women, have been socialised to center men in our lives.

I truly believe that white women who vote for Trump do so for the same reasons women follow Farage, Tommy Robinson, or Andrew Tate. It’s all about seeking validation from men. The opinions and approval of men are often the most important thing in their lives, to the point where male validation is basically treated like "God."

This isn’t just a superficial thing—it’s a value system that was drilled into them, whether directly or through action. The message they were given growing up was that male validation is the most important kind of validation you can get. And not just for self-esteem, but because it’s tied to safety. The idea is that getting that approval from men will somehow keep you safer from male violence and keep you in the good graces of the patriarchy.

This isn’t a new thing—it’s deeply rooted in how women, especially white women, have been raised. Growing up, the value we were taught to place on ourselves came from how men saw us—whether it was our family, friends, or society in general. That’s why a lot of women conform to beauty standards based on what men find attractive, and why they often don’t get progressive women, like those who reject traditional beauty ideals (you know, like "blue-haired" feminists).

I remember hearing a woman online talking about how her experience with racism also affected how she saw men. At the time, I thought it was obvious, but it really clicked for me: being a white woman has always been tied to how we interact with men and how much we internalize male perspectives. I used to think I was different from other girls because I didn’t want to be treated the way I saw women around me being treated. I didn’t want to be the girl who was dismissed or objectified, so I tried to distance myself from that.

Looking back, I can see how much of a girl’s worth was tied to how men viewed her—whether she was pretty enough, good enough, or "worthy" of male attention. It wasn’t just about looks; it was about getting approval or validation from men, even if it meant putting our own needs aside.

Yet again, I may be wrong. I'm as thick as pig mince, but I do feel that women’s worth being determined by men’s opinions helps explain why some white women vote for people like Trump. It’s about aligning with a system that promises power, security, and validation through male-dominated structures. For a lot of these women, it’s not just about politics—it’s about reinforcing their place in a system that elevates male perspectives.

We need to recognise that it’s not just about who they vote for—it’s about how deep these patriarchal norms go. It’s about understanding how women have been socialised to chase male validation in almost every aspect of our lives, from beauty standards to political beliefs. Once we realise that, we can start to see why some white women cling to these ideas, even when they seem so out of step with progressive values.

[nothorses]

ive seen a few posts talking about gender socialization as a terf idea, and im not sure I understand... I was wondering if you could help? I understand gender essentialism is a dangerous tool they use, and I see how "socialization" gets used as a more acceptable way of framing hatred of trans people.

but also, im a trans man and I do genuinely feel like my being raised "as a girl" affected my personality and interests, especially in childhood. particularly things like being taught to be quieter and more polite than my classmates and stuff. is there something im missing here?

The term "gender socialization" generally implies that socialization relies strictly on gender, and I've seen this defined either to mean AGAB (trans women are socialized and men, and trans men are socialized as women), or the gender you actually are (vice versa). Either way, it's an extremely reductive and restricting view on what is, yes, at least related to a real phenomena.

The thing is, "socialization" is different for everyone. The factors that play into it can range from the gender other people think you are, the gender you think of yourself as (which might change over time), the gender you actually are, to things completely unrelated: race and ethnicity, disability status, religion, the culture you grow up in, and so many others.

What's being discussed is essentially the impact of one's culture, and their culture's view of gender, on the way they think of themselves. Boiling that down to "male or female", even if you're not calling trans women "men" and trans men "women" to fit them into that model, is still a massive oversimplification that denies any possibility of variation in experience.

For example: I also internalized a lot of misogynistic ideas about myself growing up. But I was raised by a single mother who believed in some feminist ideals, and in a progressive area, and without the influence of religion in my family; so some of the ideas I grew up with were "you're a bossy bitch who talks too much", and some of them were "Never Rely On A Man". And while I didn't know I was a trans man yet, I also felt dysphoric about things like crying; not because I believed men couldn't cry, but because my mom encouraged me to fake cry because crying (white) women get their way.

That's not really a comparable experience to one that, say, a Christian cis woman in the US south might have.

The other flaw in this theory is the implication that "socialization" is static. Once you reach a certain age (which is never really defined), you magically stop absorbing messages from the world around you, and become cemented forever as Socialized Male or Female.

Aside from the fact that this obviously isn't true, you have to wonder: what about trans people who transition when they're children? What are they socialized as?

This isn't just an inaccurate view of the way people develop. It's a form of gender essentialism- the idea that gender determines certain immutable qualities in a person- which is itself related to, and supports theory underlying, sex essentialism; i.e., TERF and otherwise transphobic ideology.

Buying into the same idea that "man" and "woman" are stagnant categories with no overlap isn't good when you allow trans people to be categorized by their actual gender instead of their AGAB. It's still the same core philosophy, and it's still just as damaging- to intersex and nonbinary people in particular, but also to all trans people. The gender binary doesn't serve any of us.

Trans liberation means understanding, or at least leaving room for, the nuances and complexities. It means allowing people to exist in complicated ways, and to define and categorize themselves. The strict, static, and binary understanding of gender presented by "gender socialization" theory only works against that.

[haggishlyhagging]

English teachers assure us that Standard (white) English is the social sorter that determines who will rise in the social hierarchy and who will not, and they continue to use this claim to justify imposing white English on African-American speakers and other ethnic groups. But we know they lie. We know from our experience that Standard English is an excuse for denying those of us who aren't white, or men, or both access to wealth and social mobility. We know from our experience that white men, regardless of how they speak, can rise above us, however pitiful their intellectual prowess, however meager their linguistic resources. Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter, for example, both former presidents of the u.s., acquired tremendous political power and social prestige, yet both spoke "sub-standard" Southern dialects stereotypically associated with ignorance and bigotry. Shirley Chisholm, in contrast, an articulate presidential candidate known for her political integrity, was never considered a serious threat to male hegemony because of her sex and race. In spite of her command of Standard English, Chisholm didn't have the credentials to be president. She wasn't white, and she wasn't male.

If so many people know that Standard English is a lie, why haven't we risen up, exposed that linguistic hoax, and refused to go along with it? Because those responsible for our linguistic training have made us feel incompetent and powerless, forcing us to learn their false version of English and abandon our own social, ethnic, and regional dialects, using the promise of upward mobility to herd us into linguistic conformity.

The irony of my preceding discussion has probably not been lost to my readers. It is well-known that women excel in the study of prescriptive grammars. We learn those false rules much faster than our male peers, and we learn them well. In Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin (1921), the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen observed: "Woman is linguistically quicker than man: quicker to learn, quicker to hear, and quicker to answer." If we are more articulate than men, men are linguistically slower than women. Granting this, however, Jespersen didn't hesitate to turn men's inferiority into a plus for them!

A man is slower: he hesitates, he chews the cud to make sure of the taste of words, and thereby comes to discover similarities with and differences from other words, both in sound and sense, thus preparing himself for the appropriate use of the fittest noun or adjective. (249)

There's no way we can win the patriarchal grammar game. Women may be fast learners, for example, but men, because they are slow, remain linguistically dominant. The social construction of sex differences supports male dominance, and our well-attested linguistic superiority becomes yet another bit of evidence of our "inferiority."

Men have used our alleged linguistic conservatism against us—in other words, our ability to use the rules of languages they've developed—at least since Cicero, who, describing his mother-in-law's speech, said, "It is more natural for women to keep the old language uncorrupted" (Jespersen 242). Jespersen, less certain that women are more resistant to linguistic change than men, nevertheless claimed that

[w]omen move preferably in the central field of language, avoiding everything that is out of the way or bizarre, while men will often either coin new words or expressions or take up old-fashioned ones, if by that means they are enabled, or think they are enabled, to find a more adequate or precise expression for their thoughts. Woman as a rule follows the main road of language, where man is often inclined to turn aside into a narrow footpath or even to strike out a new path for himself. (248)

By this clever turn, the linguistic abilities of women are made a fault and we are stripped of our linguistic creativity by the conceptual dipsy-doodles of male logic. If women speak Standard English, we're unimaginative and stupid. If we don't, we're sluts as well. Male ineptitude becomes, as usual, a virtue.

Women are so good at prescriptive grammar that we enter college, major in English Education, and go out into the public schools to perpetuate "good English" as male grammarians have formulated it. For learning men's rules better than they, female English teachers have been caricatured by male linguists as the stereotype of linguistic evil, "Miss Fidditch." Miss Fidditch, according to male linguists, is responsible for stifling the linguistic "creativity" of generations of little boys. It's mean Miss Fidditch who coerces and browbeats them into learning the rules of prescriptive grammar, fails them for misspelling words, chastises them for saying "ain't," and makes their lives miserable because she polices their use of English. Not only are we not rich or powerful because of our control of Standard English, but men ridicule and make us culpable for our complicity in perpetuating and enforcing the rules that keep us "in our place"! In what Mary Daly calls a "patriarchal reversal," men make women responsible for the "rules" of prescriptive grammar, as though we made up the rules, viciously ridicule us for practicing and teaching the rules, and whine about how hard we make their lives!

Trying to follow the twists and turns of male thought is confusing. One fact, however, stands out from their contradictions: the reality of male power. That, and their determination to exercise it at any cost, including extermination of the species.

-Julia Penelope, Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Fathers’ Tongues

[pudgy-planets]

Also… for the last time.

Rei doesn’t hate men. Many male role models in her life sucked, her father and his one of his employees, especially.

She doesn’t need a male partner to feel fulfilled romantically. Not to mention, she dislikes how modern relationships are meant to be interpreted and the expectations that come with them.

Her grandfather is one of the most important people in her life, having raised the girl herself when her father decided his political career more important than his daughter and his wife for that matter.

Does she make comments about men in the manga? Yes. Her thoughts are mostly founded on her experiences with her father and terrible guys like him. It’s trauma. A lot of deep rooted trauma. It’s not about hating men and bashing on them anytime you see one or they’re brought up in conversation.

Rei, doesn’t feel the need nor has to have a male partner. Her dedication lies elsewhere. I personally think Rei is bisexual, but how she experiences romance is different, not opposed, but also not jumping out at the opportunity to start a relationship like that.

In fact, Rei isn’t even really liked by the girls either. The Christian school she attended was solely for publicity by her father to make her appear more westernized. The students there thought she was weird and standoffish because of her psychic powers. Rei is a very lonely character. Truth be told, many people likely only socialized with her because of her beauty and the fact her dad is a politician.

Manga Rei is a complex character with nuance. Though it’s hard for me to accurately portray this, I try to stay away from the whole hotheaded anime aspect of it.

So it rightfully annoys people miss this. Or r.adfems. Do you know how many fucking r.adfems are Sailor Moon fans? A disproportionate amount. Which fucking baffles me because it’s a story that empowers men and women. And if you don’t think it does? You’re fucking wrong. It’s not even up for debate, you’re just wrong. Why?

Because HE exists.

Rant aside, Rei in the manga is a layered character and I apologize for not writing her more- I will endeavor to do so. You should read the sailor moon manga or I will forcibly make you do it :)

[xxcalicofemmexx]

i think the thing is, is a lot of exclusionists are coming at this from the wrong direction. so much of the language used to argue against mspec lesbians is binarist to the extreme, which is extremely frustrating when what we’re talking about is a non-binary identity.

lesbianism has always included nonbinary people, and bisexuals, and gender nonconformists, and trans people, and aspecs, and men, and genderqueers, and mspec people of all kinds! we didn’t always have the language, but if you know what to look for you’ll see we were ALWAYS there.

but then the second wave of feminism hit, and with it came a lot of very loud upper-middle class white women’s opinions. political lesbianism became a thing, and lesbian separatism, and suddenly it wasn’t enough to just love women anymore. in fact, under political lesbian ideology, queer love for women didn’t factor in at all.

men were evil. men were inherently oppressors. men were sexually depraved animals that would ruin anything they touched. attraction under this ideology was an ethical choice. any woman who chose to align herself with a man was a traitor to the cause, and a victim of the patriarchy, and impure.

if that terminology sounds familiar, you’re right, it is! this was the birth of radical feminism, and with it came proto-TERFism.

now, please take a moment to consider why it became so important to center the exclusion of “men” in the definition of lesbianism. think about why a binary of “okay” and “not okay” genders would be encouraged, and who would benefit from their segregation.

all that said, i’ll address your concerns point by point

one of the bigger confusions for me with the mspec lesbian label is: what is a lesbian then?

the answer is the same as any queer identity. it’s up to personal interpretation. lesbian is a word that someone chooses to express theirself, to explain their identity, and to help find community where they belong.

in my opinion, and how i define lesbian for personal use: a lesbian is someone who experiences queer attraction to women, and prioritizes that attraction when seeking relationships.

but if a lesbian defines their personal experience with lesbianism around their lack of attraction to men, that’s cool! it’s their identity, and they’re the only one who can decide how to relate that to the real world.

the not cool part is when a singular experience is generalized, and touted as universal.

There Is No Universal Experience. the way you feel is not going to be exactly identical to everyone else.

Ive heard [lesbian] re-defined “queer attraction to women” but thats also for example what bisexual women have.

this seems to be a shocking statement to a lot of exclusionists. but. having things in common with other queer people is a good thing. yes, correct, bisexual women experience queer attraction to women. and they have personal reasons why they don’t identify with lesbianism, just like you (i assume) have personal reasons why you don’t identify with mspec labels. some people have personal reasons why they identify with multiple labels. and it’s not our business to pry into anyone’s private life!

also, as an aside bc it feels like a lot of people forget this: a bi woman’s queer attraction to women is not lesser than a lesbian woman’s. bisexuals and lesbians are equally queer. bi women and lesbian women have valuable shared experiences, including and not limited to their love for women, and the history of their communities.

Lesbianism centers women and its the only sexuality that doesnt include men.

it is not the only sexuality that doesn’t include men. ceterosexual. finsexual. enbian. neptunic. nominsexual. womasexual. hell, even bisexual doesn’t have to include men! i could go on and on and on, but my point is made.

if you don’t want to use a different label when you already identify with lesbianism so strongly, well… huh. i wonder who else feels that way 🤔

I dont see why lesbians cant just have our own label for our own sexuality?

this is a bad argument, and my absolute least favorite phrase to hear in a conversation about inclusivity. i will not give a question asked in such bad faith the dignity of a real response.

If we decide lesbianism includes men we wont even have a label for that shared experience anymore.

again, we’re not ~deciding~ that lesbianism includes men. multigender, genderfluid, nonbinary, butch, and otherwise genderqueer lesbians have always existed. it’s transphobic revisionism to say that they didn’t, to pretend this is a new concept.

parting statements

1) there are always reasons why a person connects with a label. when it comes to queer identity, a lot of people think long and hard about it. we’re talking hours upon hours of introspection- weeks, years even. if someone identifies in a way you don’t understand, it’s not your business to question them. they’ve thought about their experience more than you ever could.

2) because this is a big argument that gets thrown around: we are not going to force you to fuck men. we are not going to force you to fuck us. if you are not attracted to men, and/or you don’t want to be in a relationship with someone who could be, then walk away from them. that’s literally all it takes.

3) the acknowledgement and acceptance of mspec lesbians Does Not suggest or encourage the normalization of corrective rape, conversion therapy, or lesbophobic harassment. it does not contribute to lesbian erasure, as that is a problem with public representation and historical accounts, Not a matter of personal identity

repost, og posted feb 24, 2023

[northlight14]

The mystery grandchild

(Tw: mentions of homophobia and transphobia)

I am what my nana describes as “the mystery grandchild”.

The grandchild no one on her branch of the family knows about, aside from my dad

An inevitable consequence of living several hours away from each other

With the once in a blue moon visit

And the yearly 5 minute phone call to fill in the gaps.

With every character defining moment missed

And every word left unsaid

My life becomes a puzzle with large chunks missing.

I keep the pieces of me close to my chest

Think over each one with careful consideration before placing it before you

Keeping my punk music and smudged eyeliner tucked into my pocket

Scrubbing violently at my eyes before we meet.

I present to you my enjoyment of musicals,

But refrain from my interest in true crime.

And I smile as I tell you how I love to write

But don’t dare mention the messages of my work

And the passion for politics and the deep emotions that fuel it.

I give you enough puzzle pieces to fill the border of my puzzle

But never enough to give it any true meaning

I love you nana,

But you will never get to truly love me.

You claim I am a mystery, and oh how right you were!

You don’t even know my real name.

From being transmasc and genderqueer,

Aromantic and asexual,

Trixic oriented and ambiamourous,

I’m queer in ways they haven’t even invented yet!

A walking pride flag

Colourful and loud and proud

Both to those I trust and to passers by on the street who see my pins.

Pins that you, along with my labels, will never get to see.

Instead I keep them locked away, hidden and out of sight

On the top shelf too high for you to reach

I protect it from you and your scorn.

I rationalise it, I hear so little from you as it is

You not knowing doesn’t make much of a difference

So I’ll keep cringing at a name that now sounds alien

And smirk to myself as you ask if I have a boyfriend

I’d rather do that than become nothing but family gossip.

And the small “oh” you let out at the brief mention of lgbt rights

And yours, and other family members complaints when my aunt came out as a trans woman

Solidified that choice.

You want to know me before you go

But I’m sorry, I do not trust you with who I am

Little effort has been made on either side

And it’s something I don’t fault you for.

But when people ask me how I could consider cutting someone off so easily

I have to ask

Is it really cutting someone off

When you never truly knew each other in the first place?

——

Definitions:

Trans masc- someone who is afab but gender aligns with masculinity

Genderqueer- someone who’s gender doesn’t conform with the typical gender binary (can be seen as another term for non-binary)

Aromantic- doesn’t experience romantic attraction

Asexual- doesn’t experience sexual attraction

Oriented aro/ace- an aromantic and asexual person who still feels other types of attraction (i.e aesthetic or queerplatonic) strong and often enough for it to have its own label

Trixic- a non-binary person who likes women/non men

Ambiamourous- is comfortable being in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship

——

Thank you for reading!

Reblogs >> likes

[bisolationist]

I think the reason we (bisexuals) see our harassment from gay people go up after we deal with an incident of homophobia/biphobia from a heterosexual is that they literally think we're "asking for it" because a sentiment I see a LOT (even if sometimes it's a "joke") is:

"Bisexuals can literally choose to be straight, so why wouldnt you? How stupid are you"

Like they feel as though it would be easy for us to stay closeted our entire lives lol... on top of obviously playing into a lot of biphobic stereotypes about how we can pick and choose who we're attracted to (because we're down for anything you know lol) + that we only attract homophobia/biphobia when actively expressing same sex attraction (what a strange choice to make! Why would you victimize yourself like that if you can make it stop whenever by just acting straight?) Etc

Which is why I don't tolerate it from anyone... because it's the exact same shit that straight people give us, it's just being spewed from a different perspective. Its not "venting" lol... Aside from harassment not being okay regardless of who is doing it lmao it reinforces the attitudes that do get us assaulted/whatever by straight ppl and keep us marginalized in general.

Idk why the sexual orientation of the person saying it really matters, to be honest. Do women get a pass for being misogynistic to other women? Does any group get exempt like that when they are perpetuating stereotypes/harassing another marginalized group? I mean I hope not

Opression doesn't occur in a vacuum lol it always goes along with a certain cultural narrative about the group being opressed - in this case that bisexual are wishy-washy sex freaks who it's okay to sexually harass, because if it really bothered them they wouldn't be literally *asking for it* all the time. Everyone knows you can't trust us and take us at our word lolll

Yeah I think you may be right v_v or at least I think this is a huge chunk of it for bi women!

I think in addition to "you were asking for it" that bi women especially get**, I think they also just hate any contrary evidence to the "bihets don't really actually experience oppression". Like it's really made to be an absolute lose lose***, and bisexuals that experience an undeniable form of oppression like sexual assault just riles up both sides of that agenda :\

I'm repeating myself but I just wanna elaborate on this more. There's really this pincer. Where one half tells bi women that the main chunk of their oppression is "just" misogyny (and thus all women are equally entitled to talk about it, nothing special about bisexuality) or "just" homophobia (so again nothing special about bisexuality, in fact bisexuals are less entitled talk about it because there's a pretense we only experience incidental/'misdirected' homophobia + they were 'asking for it', as you said). And the other half just insists we're basically heterosexual and thus any and all attempts by bisexuals to discuss our own lives are histrionic BPD mental illness, malicious manipulation of the worst kind, a fictitious political agenda wherein we're 'weaponizing' our abuse, etc. etc. etc. it all boils down to Not Real Plug Ears Ignore.

Sidenote. "You Were Asking For It" wouldn't be any less evil of a thing to say to a woman experiencing homophobia from within a relationship, because women choosing relationships are never asking for abuse, but it has to be pointed out that it's a sentiment still deployed viciously against bi women that were assaulted by strangers or acquaintances. They like to pretend it's a righteous "Personal Responsibility" thing (Republican Moment) but it's clearly about pushing a political agenda and pushing a narrative about bisexuals and assault victims (Republican Moment).

**it has to be said bi men don't get this nearly so much, mainly just the latter one. But bi men still get the weird fucking reactions when they are victimized by sexual assault. That's why I think it has to be a mix. ***I think this is why they actually seem to tolerate bisexuals that are in OSA relationships and say things like "well I've been in an OSA relationship my entire adult life and have never experienced oppression so those other bis are just whiny homophobes <3". Like in addition to being a convenient mouthpiece of biphobia, it fits their narrative.

And sure, there are bisexuals that don't experience parental rejection, sexual assault, significant homophobia, etc. Yeah het relationships are a privilege. But if you try to pretend those people and those people only are the whole story when there are actively people telling much different stories than you have an agenda :\

[kimageddon]

Hey I wanted to thank you for your comments on the long thread about Phee/Tech and neurodivergence, etc. You managed to put into words what I couldn't about posts of that nature and why they were bothering me; I've mostly just blocked them rather than try to articulate what didn't sit right. Neurodivergence is a large spectrum and I think it's easy for everyone to assume a given ND character's experiences must align with theirs, rather than acknowledging it's going to work for some of us and not others, and that's all part of being a large, diverse group of people whose life experience at the hands of neurotypical society is going to be radically variant.

Hello Anon!

Thank you kindly for such a lovely message! I am very glad that I was able to say something. You may regret sending this, because I am jumping back on my soapbox.

I'm gonna talk about Autism, ND, mental health as it relates to Tech and the Bad Batch.

This is gonna be another long one:

For clarification, if anyone needs it, my message in the aforementioned thread was to offer a different perspective as the arguments did not make sense to me. I wanted to talk about the show and not about the people having the opinions.

I wanna clarify that my comments in regard to Autism being different was not to dismiss the experiences of anyone ND but to specify that while perhaps you(anyone reading this) would find the comment "it's called a conversation" upsetting (I know I would if it were said to me!).

However I do not think Tech would.

My reasoning is this:

Autism is treated differently in men and women and men (generally speaking) are not pressured to mask as much. (They still are, but not to the level of women from everything my research tells me.)

That being said, Tech has not really had to do that from the evidence I have seen. He Info dumps, interjects, and pretty much acts with confidence throughout the time we see him. Why would he need to mask? He was created to be a well of information and his brothers more or less accept him as he is.

To the argument that Phee somehow controls or manipulates or otherwise pushes her self on Tech in any manner.

I think that is ridiculous.

Firstly, she is gentle and kind when she speaks to him, if a little sassy. Nothing Tech hasn't encountered before from his brothers, or even dished out himself.

Hunter's introduction to us of Tech is: "He can fill your head with useless info for hours."

Which is probably the most dismissive thing said to him in the time we get to know him, but that just doesn't bother him.

In relation to this, people saying things like this are at risk of infantalising him. Which is a major problem within the Autistic and ND community.

Secondly. Tech is a grown ass man (weird clone aging aside). If he didn't like Phee or something she says, he can walk away, and I believe he would. He doesn't appear to feel the societal pressures, he's a soldier and doesn't get civilian etiquette so why would he follow it and stand around her just to be polite?

"Since when have we ever followed orders?"

We aren't children.

We might think differently and process differently, but we are people. We're not poor widdle babies that don't understand our feelings. We don't need protecting from the world and people that wanna treat Tech that way are doing he and the Autistic people that identify with him a massive disservice.

Finally, I wanted to clarify the part of my message that seemed to be the most controversial.

If something is so deeply upsetting that it affects your mental health detrimentally perhaps you need to look at your life and disengage from said thing.

From what I gather, some people have interpreted this to mean : just don't watch the Bad Batch. or "it's just a stupid show why do you care?"

This is not what I mean.

Of course care about it, get engaged with the characters and the story and let it make you feel things.

What this message means is:

If something -- whether it be a piece of media, a person/relationship, a social platform --

Is so deeply upsetting that it effects your mental health detrimentally -- if you have trouble sleeping or thinking about anything else or fall into depressive states (not depression generally speaking but because of the something specifically) and you cannot function at your usual level --

Perhaps you need to look at your life -- true happiness comes from within (i'll get to this in a sec) --

And disengage with said thing -- take a break, take a breath, drink water, have a snack. Let your emotions process and let yourself relax, then you can go back to it (provided of course it's not a toxic situation.) --

I realise this is far easier said than done, and it would take a significant amount of introspection, but I use this in multiple situations, not just here.

The TL:DR version; go touch grass, you'll feel better.

Alright, we've strayed a little from the point

Finally: Ship and let ship.

If you don't like Phee because you prefer to write Tech as not liking anyone but y/n or your OC -- go for it! That's totally valid! (They did it with Anakin so why not?) Besides, there were only a few interactions and it was a budding closeness, it's not like Tech was getting married to her!

But if you wanna make excuses that you only like the actress when she's not a direct romantic threat to your blorbo or do some mental gymnastics to try and portray her interactions as toxic, and he "deserves better" my dude, that reeks of something else entirely.

I decided to cut it here as it's getting a little longer than intended and I wanted to keep this to Tech/Bad Batch related stuff. I will make a post explaining the more controversial takes that apparently upset some people.

That should be interesting.

Again, thank you anon for the kind message, and giving me an opportunity to further clarify my thoughts.

If anyone has any questions or counterpoints, I would be interested to hear them.

[whatinthetomfuckery]

i was going to comment but i know i have a lot to say, and when to politely make my own post

i've seen posts about how much hating men is talked about in sapphic spaces. and while that's true and a problem, it bothers me when it's followed by "that doesn't happen in gay spaces", bc that's not true, at least in my experience, it just looks different.

i'm a trans man who is trying to be out and fit into traditionally male gay communities, (older men in the case of the leather community but it's not just them) i get comments from gay men all the time. i get pulled aside, i get side comments about icky girl parts and it kinda all boils down to "you're not really like us and understand why i'm not attracted to you and never will be bc you're trans so you get it wink wink nudge nudge tee hee vaginas are so nasty but i'd let you peg me haha but I would never touch you grossss cooties"

(women in and around these communities also get comments like this said to them or about them, as well as lots of generalizations about women but i'm drawing from my own experiences here)

i can either argue or i can not cause a scene. they're testing their beliefs. but they're also alienating me with or without knowing it. i get "trans people are so aggressive/defensive" about being misgendered or highly offensive comments about my body bc i try to be polite. i'm expected to be an ambassador but not to get upset.

i'll say "yeah, i get upset too" and start a dialogue when i can, bc sometimes they try and the communities i'm entering have a reputation for transphobia that proceeds them.

but sometimes i just want to sing showtunes in a bar with my boyfriend, and hang out with gay people.

my point is that i'm exhausted. why do i need to make myself smaller? answer to questions and assumptions about my dysphoria or plans for my body? (i would say or lack thereof but the expectation is that i hate and intend to change everything about myself and why wouldn't i?)

why do I need to reject everything remotely associated with femininity to be real?

for the record while i would love to, i don't really flirt with men in these spaces because of this. i expect nothing, i don't impose or join in the rampant flirting and i still get all of this. even in kink spaces! which is a whole other topic.

anyway I love them but a lot of our communities have a lot of gendered bullshit to unpack and it falls on trans people more often than not. i know for a fact my trans sisters have lots to say about how the "ew men" mentality in sapphic spaces affects them. it affected me when i thought i was cis and bi, i can't imagine it's better.

if you're a terf just do us both a favor and block me

[obstinaterixatrix]

oh I’m pretty sure this is within the bounds of 3 block rule. so I thought both friends bringing their partners were engaged but it turns out I was thinking about a different friend and I fell into a faux pas by going like. oh. you two aren’t…? anyway I like my friend’s fiance—ok I’m just gonna use A for engaged and B for not engaged—I like A’s fiance, I don’t know him well but even though he’s obviously more on the shy/quiet side he’ll participate in conversation (especially when there are less people) and he has clear likes and dislikes. like he has charm points, the guy really likes kirby, A mentioned both of them wanting to go out of their way to get a kirby for each room (note to self pick up a kirby plush if the chance presents itself) (note to self ask A to take pics of current kirby collection) therefore when he’s brought to our high school pal get togethers I’m like yeah I consider him a participant of the group. B’s boyfriend is there. he just exists. he’s polite and he has not committed any Guest Crimes. I don’t care for him. the experience I have with him is him being more extroverted than fiance but less engaged (wait LMAO) (sorry B) and aside from the engagement part being a sore spot (B’s been with him for 7 years) I don’t think bare minimum of ‘no murderable offense’ is enough to endear him to an outside group. he is JUST there. he eats food and exist. I don’t care for that. I think if you’re going to show up to someone’s get-together as a partner (or general plus-one guest) there is a minimum threshold of effort that goes into incorporating yourself into the social circle of your partner for that time. The goal doesn’t doesn’t have to be *make* friends but it’s like spice girls said. actually this might be the advent of ending long-term relationships, another friend is going to break up with his boyfriend of 7 years in the next four months. He (boyfriend) is also nothing to me. Oh, but this isn’t *just* me being biased against (male) partners, I hardly ever talk to a different friend’s husband and he’s fine because when we do end up in each other’s vicinity he’s a spirited conversationalist, I wouldn’t consider him a friend (if only due to time spent/overall familiarity) but I can appreciate the openness and effort. Basically what I’m saying is if you’re going to exist around a partner’s friend either *actually* show up or don’t show up at all. I don’t care for an extra mouth to feed if that’s all you’re going to be. also, I am biased against male partners. If you’re going to be a guy and date my friend then ‘not bad’ isn’t good enough, step up or get out. Tsk. Speaking of, a friend’s sister (who I would consider a friend) started dating someone and I hope they break up soon he fucking sucks. If you stay with your partner’s family for several days and don’t offer any help whatsoever that’s a murderable offense. for context all of my major social circles have been like 80% women and 5% men and 15% Gender™️ and I went to a women’s college for undergrad and grad school so I’m used to any guy coming into my life being vetted by at minimum 10 women before I learn his name and/or being able to show up in that kind of space comfortably and/or being trans. Anyway happy new year I hope my friends break up with their boyfriends and I hope my friends marry their fiances.

[legilimensims]

What also pissed me off about this is all the shit Giulia’s family got, especially her sister Elena. She was called a “satanist”, people and even right-wing politicians suggested she was to be investigated, she was the cause of her sister’s death because she “turned her back on god” - her instagram profile is swamped by these sort of comments and suddenly all of the attention wasn’t on the umpteenth femicide and the killer's subsequent actions, but on a mourning family and their personal lives, their personal beliefs, it really looked like people where trying to find every excuse under the sun to justify the actual murderer. Giulia’s family is still being demonized for turning their mourning into a national outcry, for daring to speak the words “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchal society”, for daring to appear on tv instead of staying at home in silence ("They want fame!! They are capitalizing on Giulia's death!! They are ready to go into politics!! It’s all leftist propaganda to impose an extremist ideology to the detriment of the good, white, catholic men!!!" "What about the immigrants!!"). This is Italy and it hurts living in a country like this. Allow me to share the words of Giulia’s father Gino, spoken earlier at her funeral:

«I address men first, because we should first demonstrate that we are agents of change against gender violence. We speak to other males we know, challenging the culture that tends to downplay violence from seemingly normal men. We should be actively involved, challenging the diffusion of responsibility, listening to women and not turning our heads at even the slightest signs of violence. Our personal action is crucial to breaking the cycle and creating a culture of accountability and support. To those who are parents like me, I speak from the heart: let's teach our children the value of sacrifice and commitment and also help them to accept defeats. Let us create in our families that climate that favors a serene dialogue so that it becomes possible to educate our children to respect the sacredness of every person, to a sexuality free from any possession and to true love that seeks only the good of others. We live in a time where technology connects us in extraordinary ways, but often, unfortunately, isolates us and deprives us of real human contact. It is essential that young people learn to communicate authentically, to look into the eyes of others, to open themselves to the experience of those who are older than them. The lack of authentic human connection can lead to misunderstandings and tragic decisions. We need to rediscover the ability to listen and be listened to, to truly communicate with empathy and respect. School has a fundamental role in the education of our children. We must invest in educational programs that teach mutual respect, the importance of healthy relationships and the ability to manage conflicts constructively to learn to deal with difficulties without resorting to violence. Violence prevention begins in families, but continues into classrooms, and we must ensure that schools are safe and inclusive places for all. The media also plays a crucial role to conduct responsibly. The spread of distorted and sensationalist news not only fuels a morbid atmosphere, giving space to looters and conspiracy theorists, but can also contribute to perpetuating violent behavior. Calling yourself out, looking for justifications, defending the patriarchy when someone has the strength and desperation to call it by its name, turning victims into targets just because they say something that perhaps we don't agree with, doesn't help to break down barriers. Because we can only emerge from this type of violence which is only apparently personal and senseless by feeling that we are all involved. Even when it would be easy to feel absolved. I ask political institutions to put aside ideological differences to jointly address the scourge of gender violence. We need laws and education programs aimed at preventing violence, protecting victims and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. Law enforcement agencies must be equipped with the necessary resources to actively combat this plague and the tools to recognize the danger. But in this moment of pain and sadness, we must find the strength to react, to transform this tragedy into a push for change. The life of Giulia, my Giulia, was cruelly taken from us, but her death can, indeed must, be the turning point to put an end to the terrible plague of violence against women. Thank you all for being here today: may Giulia's memory inspire us to work together».

Between the 11th and 12th of this month, Giulia Cecchettin, a 22-year-old Italian girl, disappeared alongside her ex boyfriend, Filippo Turetta. Today, 18th November, her body was found in a lake 140km from where I live.

For six days, we were told that they ran away together, despite the fact Giulia was supposed to graduate from university on the 16th. That we shouldn't jump to conclusions, that there wasn't any proof he had killed her, that we were crazy for even thinking it. When a video of him beating Giulia up until she was bleeding came out, newspapers were filled with declarations from his family saying he loved her, he would never do anything to hurt her, he was just a little possessive and jealous.

We all knew. We all fucking knew since we read the words "ex boyfriend".

Giulia is the 103rd woman victim of feminicide in Italy in 2023. 103.

Meanwhile, Giulia's sister Elena, who has had to spend the last week making as much noise as possible because that was her only hope of finding her sister, was asked if the family was ready to forgive him. Newspapers talk about how good of a guy he was, they carefully avoid saying he murdered her, they refer to them as a couple. I've lost track of how many men have taken time to comment "not all men" under posts about Giulia.

Not all men, but all women.

If you live outside of Italy, you probably won't hear of this news. You probably don't know how pervasive victim blaming is in Italian news stations, how bad the statistics of feminicide are. So, please, reblog this post. Demand justice. Say Giulia Cecchettin's name.

Se domani non torno, distruggi tutto.

[mariannewilliamson2024]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Marianne Williamson (@mariannewilliamson)

Throughout my career, I have never felt in any wav limited by my gender. I never felt opportunities were denied to me because I am a woman.

Let me tell you, that changes when you run for President.

I had never fully understood the word misogyny or how much it drains all of us of life force. It's different than racism or antiSemitism or homophobia, because those are acknowledged character defects. Misogyny so permeates our culture that most people don't even know when their attitudes are misogynistic - and I'm sorry to say that applies to women as well as men.

From the beginning of my campaign, l've found myself at the effect of things I'd never experienced before. If something happened in my campaign, it was described one way; if it happened in the campaign of one of my male opponents, the narrative was distinctly different. I'm kooky; they're profound. I was crazy; they were take-charge.

But the latest one really takes the cake. In every national poll I'm ahead of my opponent Dean Phillips, but according to Andrew Yang I should just let Dean take it from here!

As Yang put it in his endorsement speech for Phillips:

"To my friend Marianne Williamson, you have run a noble, courageous campaign and have articulated many of the things that Americans should expect and deserve. I ask you to join us in challenging the true enemy. The true enemy is the political establishment...

....Marianne, Dean is our best chance to

change things. I am looking forward to serving in his administration and I would love for you to join us."

Besides being flabbergasted, I couldn't help wondering if Andrew would have dared do that were I a man. And I'm not even sure if Andrew knows. But the days of a woman standing aside on the assumption that a man can do a better job are over.

I've learned from this experience what money and power can do. I knew it, but not like now. I've learned what prejudice and judgement can do. I knew it, but not like now. I've learned from this experience what misogyny can do. I knew it, but not like now. I have learned from this experience what politics can do, but I have faith in my heart in what love can do.

Thank you for being on this journey with me.