#bc to them all identity is fluid and meaningless

[watermelinoe]

imo the difference with trans toddler is that khelif was legitimately treated like a girl throughout her childhood, whereas the toddler would be treated like a special boy.

but i think you could make the argument that he wouldn't, because at that age kids are just little sexless blobs and only the parents and maybe his teachers would know, so externally he would be treated like a girl. that's why i liked ms femenaces' response bc he would not internalize it the same, knowing on some level that it isn't meant for him, and socialization works in part because we have an instinct to sort ourselves into groups and fit in. in delusions of gender there's an interesting passage about girls with dsds who align themselves more with boys - not because of an innate "masculine" gender identity but she suggests it's because they sense that there is something different and are trying to make themselves fit in based on what they've observed about gender roles. we make some effort to socialize ourselves so we can be accepted. i was called a tomboy growing up and it's hard when you know you're a girl but you just don't fit in with other girls, so a lot of little girls (me included) become "one of the boys" instead, which is of course a label reserved only for girls, it's part of female socialization. the experience of a boy trying to fit in with girls would be so fundamentally different from girlhood even if on the surface the treatment from strangers is the same because at some point the realization hits us that this all happens because of our female bodies

[drbased]

i’m kind of a baby radfem and im learning about being gender critical and i definitely agree with most of it, the only part that i have thoughts about is the nonbinary identity. i believe that a gender non conforming woman and a nonbinary woman can mean the same thing. in that, i believe that you can be a nonbinary *insert sex here* and it basically just means you’re gender nonconforming. and then it’s like well why do we need two different terms to mean the same thing and we definitely don’t, but i think it’s dangerous to conflate being nonbinary with being agender bc it’s not the same thing and it just makes gender rhetoric even more stupid & ridiculous lol. i’ve seen plenty of people identify as nonbinary and still identify with their sex-based gender. i also believe you can be female and see yourself as a woman and still use they/them or even he/him pronouns. what do u think??

(Bear with me on this, this is a long response but I hope you find it illuminating)

People regularly accuse radfems of being nazis/right wingers and I take those accusations incredibly seriously, and as I result I regularly take time to doubt my position. But the thing I keep coming back to is that:

There is no proof, and perhaps there cannot be proof, that gender exists: it is fundamentally metaphysical, spiritual, soul-like, a product of mind-body dualism, the belief that there is some nebulous internal sense of self that happens to share some labels with sex classification but also happens to completely subsume it in modern leftist discourse, despite that

Regardless of whether or not 'gender' is real, it does not form the basis of the male class oppression of women as a class, and the moment you engage with any feminist theory this fact becomes impossible to ignore. There is no true biological backing behind race and yet we are (in theory, anyway) comfortable with being able to identify and codify the oppressor and oppresses classes in that scenario; however, arguments from the mainstream left will vaguely gesture towards sex being 'fluid' as justification for the dissolution of classic feminist arguments. It's important to be suspicious of why this is and who might benefit from it;

To build on point one, due to the fact that gender has no material basis in the real world, the only 'signifiers' for it are ones that already exist as cultural schemas - and these are, naturally, taken from existing sex roles designed to uphold misogyny and, more broadly, patriachy itself. 'Gender fluid' people are at this point infamous for their tik toks of when they're male or female, and the way they demonstrate this is through short hair and comfortable clothes vs long hair and feminine styling.

Occam's razor + feminist analysis will inevitably point towards women 'identifying' with nonbinary, agender etc. simply being women who are uncomfortable with the misogynistic connotations of femaleness, and who naturally wish to disassociate from them. When you see things under that lens, you can immediately notice patterns of behaviour and language that signal the belief system they hold. To 'identify' as anything is fundamentally meaningless, and signals nothing to both yourself and others except perhaps language. As a person recovering from depression, I have been detaching myself from all rigid concepts of classifying myself and instead focussing much more on being who I am in the moment. It it much healthier to be this way (and a lot less stressful, too)

When we call ourselves 'women', this is nothing more a neutral description of our biology. And due to our status as an oppressed class, especially one based on our biology, it is of paramount importance that we retain language that succinctly names us as such. Dworkin states in Pornography that one of the powers that men have is the power of naming. We still live under patriarchy, and the language we use cannot be separated from male ideas and male thought. Men had, and have, no problem naming us as the oppressor class when it benefits them (especially in the case of prostitution and pornography), but as it has become less, let's say' popular to be seen as a man in recent years, we have seen an explosion of transgender rhetoric enter the popular consciousness. Without the ability to recognise ourselves as women, we lose statistics, we lose safe spaces away from the oppressor class, and we lose class consciousness.

As for using 'they/them' and 'he/they' pronouns - well, I'm a straight woman, but I'm aware that there is a certain lesbian tradition of using masculine pronouns. But that's in a very different context to what's being described here. I've already addressed language but let's put a laser-sighted focus on pronouns for a second:

As a culture, we default to 'he' pronouns for a reason. For a long time, we were 'mankind' and everything akin to humanity is given masculine pronouns. Cute little critters are assumed to be male, probably all your soft toys are male, the most basic of doodles are assumed to be male and only allowed to be female once they are given a dress. It should be no surprise that women who want to escape the shackles of femininity want to be called he/him - they want access to the percieved full humanity of men. Meanwhile, the only times we attribute she/her to things other than people are to things like cars, ships, and natural disasters (with the exception of mother nature, of course) - tools of warfare, accessories of masculinity, and symbols of 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

There is a study somewhere that shows that when you use 'they/them' as a neutral pronoun, people assume male - especially if you're referencing a prestige profession. If I were to say, I went to the doctor yesterday, they were great - you would automatically assume a male doctor. This is no accident - as already stated, maleness is the default. Women who want to use they/them are dissociating themselves from femaleness but in doing so they are accidentally using language that signifies maleness. This is why feminist analysis is so important, and why 'identifying' as something holds little water in the real world. In an ideal world, perhaps they/them could be genuinely seen as neutral - but we don't live in an ideal world; we live in a world where women are oppressed.

So to answer part of your question, no, I do not believe that 'nonbinary' and 'gender non-conforming' are the same thing; nonbinary is an attempt at classifying someone according to some nebulous, unprovable sense of internal identity that has no real material impact - and any attempt to 'express' this gender are simply taking existing sex roles and mashing them together. Gender nonconforming has a different meaning in radfem circles as it does in transgender ones - TRAs take it to mean that someone is indentifying with a different gender than they were 'assigned' at birth, but radfems simply use it to describe the physical act of being a woman (or man) who doesn't conform to expected sex roles. I am 'gnc' but that's just a neutral descriptor of my dress-sense - and it's a loose descriptor because in many ways I'm definitely not gnc in my behaviour, although I am working on my self-confidence, especially in contexts such as physical fitness and DIY. Gnc is useful shorthand for 'not conforming to sex roles in some major capacity enough to be noticeable by others' - and the only reason it's important, especially for women, is because femininity (our expected behaviour) is designed by the patriarchy to dissociate us from our bodies and keep us decorative, fragile, weak and sexually vulnerable to men.

[cruelsister-moved]

have you ever reblogged any post about how pansexuality is shit? i tried to use the search function but could not find anything in your post. I know there are posts about how pansexuality is harmful to bisexuality and i would to find it, i thought you might know it

i can just tell you ngl like in short its literally a meaningless distinction from bisexual like people will come up with all kinds of stupid reasons to justify it but they are all really abstract when every other letter of the lgbt community is just like. you're a man attracted to men or a woman attracted to women or youre not the gender you were identified as at birth and this already covers everything. like pansexual meaning you're attracted to people "regardless of gender" makes no sense to be its own thing bc lgbt people all have different experiences within the broad labels but it's so unnecessary to split.

on top of that it just has a nasty history that takes it from annoying and pointless to actually harmful. like every pansexual I've met irl has proudly announced "I'm pansexual because I like men, women, and trans <3" like trans people aren't a different gender - both gayness and bisexuality already includes trans people. the implication you have to have a different sexuality in order to date trans people is very othering and borderline mjsgendering, not to mention as a cis person specifically identifying around your interest in dating trans people is literal chaser behaviour.

also a lot of pan people will say this "hearts not parts" thing which aside from once again being transphobic for the same reasons above is also super homophobic. like gay and bi ppl have spent years being told we are disgusting genital obsessed perverts (rug-muncher + cocksucker being extremely popular epithets) so making an identity out of how you fall in love with people while everyone else is just chasing cock and/or pussy is the most ridiculously homophobic thing ever.

it's basically an ideological thing rather than a material one - it doesn't indicate an actual difference of dating habits (n ironically a lot of pannies are in practise super transphobic) but just that you're better and more enlightened than other lgbt people. a lot of celebrities also identify as pan as this abstract philosophical thing where its much less about who you'd actually date in reality and much more about just having the idea that like gender is fluid and we're all just people etc etc which is good for them but it's annoying that this is every lgbt icon like ok where are the dykes tho 😭

the idea that one identity can be more progressive than another is kind of plaguing the lgbt community atm also like being gay or lesbian or a binary trans person is regressive and closed minded and the pan thing is just kind of the worst extention of that. like your identity isn't ideological its just who you are theres no connotations to being a lesbian vs being bi whereas pan kind of asserts ideological superiority over gay and bi people and in particular making it seem like being attracted to only one gender is a flawed position

[horrifically]

(different anon) I completely understand that gender and sexuality can be messy, and I completely understand that there are similarities in experiences between trans men and lesbians and that trans men who are exclusively attracted to women might not identify with straightness because of the way they experience gender/attraction/etc and the way being straight is usually linked pretty tightly with being cis but, as a lesbian, I really do not believe that a trans man can BE a lesbian. Of course there are transmasc lesbians, but that's different because they aren't men, and of course trans men and lesbians should connect and share resources and the like, but the exclusion of men is a pretty big defining factor of lesbianism separating it from bisexuality. If a trans man can be a lesbian, then it kind of implies that people who are exclusively wlw would pursue relationships with someone they know is a man just because they don't attempt to appear to be a cis man. In my own experience, when I find out someone's a man, I lose interest in them because I'm not attracted to men (and the opposite happens as well, where I won't have much interest in someone, then find out they're a woman, or woman-aligned, and become very interest!). I definitely think that saying trans men and lesbians are entirely different and have no shared experiences is wrong and only serves to put unnecessary divisions in the lgbt community, but there are some necessary divisions, not in the sense of separation, because there's overlap among every identity, some more than others, but if a man can be a lesbian it kind of renders the term meaningless and historical examples of trans men being referred to as lesbians by themselves and other lesbians doesn't convince me much otherwise because language changes, understandings of gender and sexuality change, the context and use for these labels change. I do fully support lesbian organizations supporting, welcoming and uplifting trans men and vice versa because we do have similar experiences, etc, and it's definitely something that requires a lot of nuance and is very complex, but that doesn't mean that trans men can be lesbians. I know this is kind of rambly, but I hope it's understandable at least?

so you basically said everything i said but came to the conclusion that trans men are exactly the same as cis men and operate the same way therefore they can not interact with women in queer/gay ways... firstly, one trans man feeling comfortable with the lesbian label does not change what it means bc thats not how lesbianism works. there are multiple situations where a lesbian would be comfortable being with a trans man and vice versa and that doesnt make them less of a man and that doesnt make the lesbian less of a lesbian bc again not every trans man is the same. my whole point is that queer people are going to be queer and we need to more lax when we are approached by a new situation we don't understand. that doesn't mean i believe that lesbianism is fluid or that lesbians sleep with men in general with genuine attraction. im saying that labels are not boxes and sometimes people step out of them depending on their comfort zone. every time trans men (or women) explain their experiences with lesbianism they are sent death threats bc "lesbians dont sleep with men". like maybe instead of doing that, listen to the trans people talking and absorb that the way you view labels and the way queer people interact with each other is wrong.

also NO ONE is saying trans men and lesbians should be combined in a community ?? all i said is that trans men who like the label or need shelter have been historically accepted. it is quite obvious that i am not advocating for no divisions between the lesbian and trans men communitites.

[in-tua-deep]

Could you do some genderbent au headcannons?

i’m not,, entirely sure what this ask is asking I’ll be honest oof

I guess I’ll give my headcanons regarding gender??

I like to headcanon Klaus, Five, and Vanya as all nonbinary. Klaus is a “I don’t know man I just live here” sort of nonbinary where he’s somewhat fluid when it comes to gender and honestly every day is a bit of a mystery. Where’s that one post with like “I’m a boy for now” because that’s how I picture Klaus. Five I headcanon probably closer to agender?? Doesn’t particularly understand what gender is, nor does he particularly care. Vanya I headcanon as a nonbinary woman!! Nonbinary lesbians represent amiright

UHHH I enjoy trans Diego and have seen a few really good fics,, I also appreciate trans Five as well!! And genderfluid Five or Klaus. All very good headcanons that I’ve seen around

Haven’t really thought about Luther I’ll be real, but I doubt Luther thinks about himself either and hasn’t explored Literally Anything about his gender and sexuality i mean oof,, but he has some serious body dysphoria going on that’s for sure

Allison I haven’t thought about either but just sort of mentally assign her the role of cis sibling alongside maybe Luther like I know a lot of people just assign Luther as the token cishet sibling but i have my Doubts hmm,, if push came to shove i’d probably say he’s grey ace or demi?? the one (1) time he has a sexual relationship of any kind he was also super under the influence I don’t know and outside of that one time the only person he showed interest in was Allison (which personally I find ew) but I mean he took years to form a strong emotional connection with her first sO

UHHH i don’t know about Ben - probably headcanon him as nonbinary as well?? What can I say, I, a nonbinary person, am allowed to project as much as I wish to. But also constantly wearing hoodies is a nonbinary mood?? Ben’s gender of the day is “I summon eldritch monsters from my midriff”

why am i suddenly picturing Ben in a croptop that says exactly that

I have seen that one post floating around saying something along the lines that if there’s no father then all the sibs should be afab and most of them are just trans which I could get behind tbh

BUT YEAH most headcanons are ones that I can get behind, I’m not overly attached to any one headcanon that I have that I wouldn’t be willing to read a fic with cis!Klaus vs. trans!Klaus vs. nonbinary or genderfluid!Klaus, you feel? Mainly bc a lot of fics aren’t specifically about gender so you can sort of project what you want to?? 

Like if you want to read my fics about Five as trans!Five then I support that!! Give me that good content!! I think the only time I addressed Five’s gender identity in any of my fics was the shopping one where he said something like “Fabric is fabric. Warmth is warmth. Gender is meaningless and existence is a prison.” in response to one of the siblings saying that he’s in the women’s section of the store idk but honestly you could also interpret that as a holdover from apocalypse living where he couldn’t afford to be picky instead of me gently implying my agender Five headcanon

So headcanon what y’all want about the kids genders!! And don’t forgot - both gender and sex are both spectrums (as are most things when you look closer at them) so do what you want!!

(did you know people can have five X chromosomes?? who needs that many chromosomes!! shit be wild!!!! I wrote a paper on sex as a spectrum for a class and it was fantastic tbh it was just like seven pages of me yelling about how people can’t even bother to agree how to define sex so why the fuck is everyone so eager to only have two categories - any psychology person will tell u that categorical things suck and spectrums are where it’s at eyyyy but this whole post was about gender so somewhat off topic lmao)