#but TERF women are just doing it bc men are dangerous for women so you can kind of see where they're coming from can't you ):

[yiddishfisting]

this is why it's impossible for trans women to be TERFs (as much as i see other tme people throw that accusation around) bc TERFism is very specifically and purposefully built upon transmisogyny + oppression of trans women. TERFs don't "hate men" or think men are inherently evil lmao they hate TRANS WOMEN + the "hating men" shit as said is a misgendering smokescreen used to make it seem like TERFs on some level have a sort of "justification" when in actuality it's pure bigotry plain and simple

[i-am-agent-washingtub]

:/

[babsaros]

hey. when cis society is oppressing a trans man, what he is experiencing is. In Fact. misogyny. i'm sorry i know none of us like to be reminded of our agab, and it hurts whenever people perceive you as the wrong gender. but a cis person hate-criming, assaulting, verbally abusing, etc, a trans man is not doing "transandrophobia" because they do not perceive him as a man.

they perceive him as a woman failing at her gender, as a woman who has been seduced and lied to and manipulated because women are so easily led astray, just like it says in the bible. they perceive him as a woman who has been mutilated. they perceive him as a dyke that needs to be fixed. if they are hate-criming him because they *do* perceive him as a man, because he passes well enough they aren't thinking he could be trans, then they're doing so out of homophobia, perceiving him as a gay man, a pervert, a sissy, a danger to children. OR, they are being transphobic but specifically because they think he might be transfeminine instead. when cis society oppresses a trans woman, they are able to do it on multiple levels at once. She's a woman failing at her gender, a dyke that needs to be fixed. Or she's an evil and grotesque crossdressing pervert, a rude caricature, a danger to polite society. she will never be doing enough to escape oppression entirely, no matter if she gets every surgery she can and wears makeup every day and passes perfectly, because she lives under a patriarchy, and she's a woman, so she lives in a panopticon, and HAVING to get surgery and wear make-up to be respected IS oppression, especially if the alternative is being hate-crimed.

trans women (and trans men who pass) are not experiencing "transandrophobia" when a 'queer women and nbs" event turns them away at the door for being too masculine. they are. IN FACT!! experiencing the byproducts of misogyny in a patriarchy!!! where the terfs and coward cis women running those events and occupying those spaces have been taught (sometimes through experience, sometimes by men, sometimes by women) throughout life that men = stronger and more dangerous than women ALWAYS. That they need to protect themselves at all times and always be vigilant. That men and women can't be friends without sexual tension (and so as queer women the mere existence of what they perceive as a "man" is a threat). That women need a separate sports league because they can't possibly compete with someone who has even a little bit "extra" (an unquantifiable amount actually because there isn't a standard range) testosterone. That women should cook and men should fix cars. i promise you, i promise i promise i promise. it's misogyny. like!!! you don't say cis gay men experiences "androphobia", bc that's not a thing!! you sound like fucking mens rights activists guys please! you don't say a black man experiences "misandrynoir"!! because living in a patriarchy fundamentally means men do not experience oppression based on their gender. its not happening. shut the fuck up. stop walking us back to 2014 can we please take a step forward and stop bitching about this. there are genuine issues in the world and i'm frankly sick of people who should be smarter than that needing to be gently hand-held through this fucking explanation for the millionth time and still stomping their feet.

[velvetvexations]

TERFs are so bad at making bottom surgery sound bad. Saw one say "--- (read: trans woman "vaginas" and trans man "penises") is something only erotic to a necrophile". Which was obviously intended to be off putting but i dunno I think it sounds kinda metal???. N there's one i just ran into calling neovaginas "axe wounds" which I KNOW is meant as an insult but oh my god it makes them sound so badass to me

lmao it was bad enough I felt compelled to censor it but yeah we're all about reappropriating TERF conceptions of trans people here

I'm white myself but I've been noticing more and more that white trans people have such a victim complex and believe themselves (ourselves) to be the most oppressed group ever. An acquaintance of mine (a famous trans activist) recently said that "trans people are the only people that face hate for how we dress". Like??? what about ethnic and religious minorities??? what about All Women including cis ones??? She also loves using antisemitism as an example of what "could" or "is going to" happen to trans people while treating it as something that was resolved after ww2 and is not very much still rampant

People are drawing swastikas on Synagogues and calling it praxis!

Idk if you ever saw this comic, but about a month ago, a trans man made a jokey joke comic about making an appointment at the gyno where the receptionist was confused. The ultimate punchline was that he's trans, and thus is the one who needs the appointment. It's v clear that the main point of confusion is that the receptionist thought she was talking to a cis man, who would have no real need for gynecological care. In the "I'm upset when not about me" crowd of TRFs, they decided it was transmisogynistic bc no *actually* the receptionist thought the trans man on the line with a deep voice was really a trans woman. Because sometimes trans women are mistaken as men over the phone. Idk if they just missed that it wasn't a primary care provider or what, but it was v clear to me that the idea was confusing a trans man over the phone for a cis man. Cis men generally don't need gynecologists. Trans men can need gynecologists. It had fuck all to do with trans women on a subtextual level. I can't fathom how they thought that.

TRFs CANNOT fucking read holy shit I hope they fucking apologized to the author

sorry to bring up PT AGAIN ik you are probably tired of hearing about it, but one of the last posts.i read before unfollowing was a comparison of transandrophobia believers with James Fucking Somerton. and its ironic as fuck to me because alot of critiques of Somerton can absolutely apply to them. equating any critique as harassment based on their identity is a big one and its been driving me nuts to see trfs envoke a James Somerton comparison when they are doing similar shit to him

James Somerton is a convenient lightning rod to compare every bad queer person for the rest of time

As a trans male I hate the weird, white knight shit that i see so many other men doing rn, like shut up will you?? Trans boys are not "cowards" or "incels" for not putting themselves in harm's way for (ESPECIALLY) CIS WOMEN Or trans women/girls. I'm so sick of seeing that stupid shit. Those guys are on the same level as military recruiters in my opinion. Just as predatory and fucking dangerous. Like not to be a dick but why do they seem SO convinced that trans boy must be naturally so much stronger then the average trans girl? Hello???????? Hello???

Man is the Strong Gender.

honestly of it wasn't for the lesbian separatism shit i would think that some transfem TRFs want some kind of tradwife-style "macho manly man protects his wife who is a delicate flower incapable of both violence and self-defense who will die if you look at her too hard" thing with a transmasc partner or something, given the way they actively applaud transmascs who talk like that. which would be totally fine if it was a weird fetish thing but this seems to be an actual expression of their politics (also am i just old or does anyone remember when the dominant feminist rhetoric was "women are just as strong as any men and can protect themselves")

it sure feels like that doesn't it lmao

IN WHAT UNIVERSE ARE WHITE PEOPLE INVISIBLE lmaoooo that post was too much

seriously lmao

I really dislike "trans women are the women of women" cuz once again we're using woman to mean the lowest position in a hierarchy

as always

Just something I wanted to share bc it made me really happy: when the forcefem blog made that post about how forcemasc isn't revolutionary and makes no sense or whatever the fuck, one of my transfem mutuals talked about how stupid the aforementioned post was and expressed her support for forcemasc and transmascs in general. I had no doubts that she was supportive of transmascs but that made me super happy!

Hell yeah, I'm really happy for that anon!

Happy Christmas eve if u celebrate ^^ hope ur havin' a good evening [or whatever time it is over where u live]

you as well <3

Logging into Tumblr after a chill movie night with the family only to see you've murdered a guy, holy shit

my tits were too heavy once more

saw another transandrophobia denier, this time on my dash specifically

terrible

Hell yeah it's always nice to find a casual history enjoyer online who's not racist

I do my best.

[straightlightyagami]

maybe the reason people on here do not understand what terfs/gc radfems believe and often cannot even tell them apart from transphobic conservatives,or just transphobes who are not radfems in general, (like they will say stuff that is in most cases very obviously untrue about terf beliefs like “terfs want women to be feminine” and “terfs have nothing against cis men actually they only care about trans people”) is that they cannot grasp that terfs genuinely view trans men as women and trans women as men. and then they get mad when people tell them their perception of this ideology is incorrect. i think this is a pretty dangerous trend bc this is how they recruit people, someone hears all this stuff radfems supposedly believe, arguments against strawmen instead of the actual thing, and then they hear actual radfem beliefs and go “so i was lied to.” since this person doesn’t understand the basis of this sort of bigotry, they may begin to believe it if it is introduced with a different explanation.

so to say, in order to defeat your enemy you have to understand them and you clearly do not

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

Hey I know that my blog looks fake because it’s 10 seconds old but i promise this isn’t bait, I am a trans woman and new to radical feminism thru trying to interrogate my feminism bc of recent irl developments (big fight with a radfem close friend who is also trans) and that’s why my account looks sus

I’m wondering what you mean by trans radical feminism & how you think it’s in your recent post? Like I dunno maybe im super naive bc I am only recently online again but to me a radfem critique has been really valuable in understanding my position as a woman & I don’t see it as transmisogynistic , but maybe my understanding is based on a different interpretation of it. Id appreciate your time and consideration in this 🖤🖤✨

Sure. I also recommend you read my posts and other peoples posts on this. I understand how reading some radical feminist theory or ideas could be helpful in understanding how patriarchy and gender works in our society, and I think a very critical reading of radical feminism can be valuable in certain ways. But the fundamental issue with radical feminism is that it can never truly escape essentialism, whether that’s bioessentialism or gender essentialism (they are one and the same really). It is also lacking in intersectionality because the reason it is called radical feminism is because of the belief that patriarchy is the “root” of all oppression. This reflects that classic “radfem” ideology was only meant to serve one group of women: white cis women. In reality, all oppressions are inseparable and intertwined. We cannot divorce patriarchy from capitalism, white supremacy, antisemetism, ableism, and all other oppressions that exist. Patriarchy didn’t develop in isolation: it is a product of how various human societies has been specifically working for about 10,000 years, which is only a small fraction of human history. There is nothing in nature that predisposes beings to patriarchy or heterosexuality. It is invented, and this is important, in tandem with all other oppressive systems in human society. Not in isolation.

Classical radical feminism is indistinguishable from TERFism because it posits not only that misogyny based on “biological sex” is the root of all oppression, but that sex and gender are immutable, binary traits. I just ask how anyone can take that ideology and make it trans inclusive without changing it completely. There is nothing radical feminism that doesn’t reproduce white cis feminism even if the people calling themselves radfems aren’t those things. Liberation from patriarchy can only be achieved with all trans people.

Classical TERF radical feminism says that trans women are dangerous men invading women’s spaces, and trans men are gender traitors/lost lesbians with internalized misogyny, and nonbinary people don’t exist. The only difference in “TIRFism” or “inclusive” radical feminism, is repeating all the same arguments as the classical radical feminist, but then supposedly “including” trans women as women. The transandrophobia and exorsexism remains, and so does the transmisogyny - it is just more veiled. But make no mistake, “trans inclusive radical feminists” still only accept trans women who can be neatly slotted into classical, gender essentialist ideas of what womanhood is. Multigender people, who identify as both men and women? Bisexual people? Radical feminists do not like them..

I suggest intersectional feminism, which acknowledges patriarchy as connected with all other struggles and rejects gender essentialism.

[snekdood]

rewatching that video natalie made about cringe and she gets to a point where shes talking about how there were trans women using “cringe” trans women as examples of Bad Transgenders Which They Are Not and how they’ll go as far as to misgender and dismiss their transition to justify their exclusion. and i really think yall need to read this and internalize it and realize you’re doing this about trans men who talk about our oppression:

(in reference to the video clip she’s responding to, she says;) “Rose… gorg. Jessica Yaniv is not one of "the biggest characters in the world" at any moment. This is not a world historical figure. At the end of the day, this is a more or less random civilian sex fiend off the streets of Vancouver BC. The only reason anyone has heard of her at all, is that Vanessa decided to go full "To Catch a Predator" and turn this grimy reprobate into a minor anti-celebrity. She's not one of the biggest characters in the world. But it sounds like what she is Rose, is one of the important characters in your brain.

This is distorted thinking. It's like A-Log comparing Chris-Chan to Hitler. You're so deep in the morbid cringe obsession that you've lost perspective. And I'm sure you have what seem to you like perfectly logical reasons for devoting so much attention to this. And I know that videos about Yaniv get a lot of views, so I'm sure that's a factor too. But Rose, I also know a morbid cringe obsession when I see one. And I know that being a visible trans woman on the Internet is more difficult than most people can imagine. And I know that pretty much every trans person is bullied or shamed or humiliated at some point in our lives. And I know how good it can feel to take all the horrible things that transphobes and bullies and TERFs have said about us, and repeat those things verbatim about some “big, fat, fake, dangerous, delusional, disgusting male fetishist”.

Oh, it feels good to get to be the TERF for once. It feels good to be the judge rather than the judged. Because when you point the finger at someone else, you're also pointing away from yourself. And it's not lost on me that in conservative circles, queer people are often treated like suspected sex criminals by default. So there's safety in being the one who spearheads the “think-of-the-children” type moral crusade. And when you expose a trans predator, you get that feeling of safety plus the relief of having someone in particular to blame for the shame and the stigma we all feel. Jessica Yaniv is the reason people hate us. But that's just not true. It's a simple answer to a complicated problem. It's scapegoating.

When I look at the Yaniv obsession on trans YouTube, I see a community trying to cope with stigma and hoping that destroying a scapegoat will bring relief. It's basically a blood sacrifice. It's not rational. It feels good for a moment, but it's an addiction. It won't ever erase the stigma and the shame. And Yaniv is simply the latest and most deserving in a long line of bad transgenders who aren't real transgenders and are giving us a bad name and are the reason people hate us and must be condemned and destroyed.

But when Yaniv is finally gone, when you get her sent to prison or whatever your goal is, you're just gonna find a new scapegoat to take her place. And the shame cycle continues. The humiliation and bullying we've experienced is internalized as shame. When we project that shame onto scapegoats and onto each other, it becomes cringing and contempt. And we voice that contempt by shaming other people, which starts a new cycle.

So you can keep finding new scapegoats, new punching bags, new shamedumps, new lolcows, and you can wind up like one of the people who's been archiving Chris-Chan for 13 years. But that will never really heal us.”

‘n i kinda feel like thats whats going on right now....

[genderkoolaid]

the whole point of that anon was saying that there is not always a study that can "prove" things but that you should listen to the female victims of trans women and the many, many examples of outed trans rapists who are female/afab compared to those who are male/amab. you posting a study saying there's no pattern doesn't prove anything because the whole point is so much of rape can't be documented legally, esp when there's social pressure not to report bc you will be called a bigot or terf

Man there have been multiple anons I've gotten from trans men talking about being sexually assaulted by trans women and how they were afraid to talk about it because they didn't want to give more ammunition to y'all. You make it harder for people to talk about this kind of interpersonal violence because they don't want to be associated with people who lie about the very real oppression trans women face. Because the rest of us would like to be able to discuss this shit without acting like trans women are privileged or especially dangerous when the truth is they are just people who can do evil shit. & the reason there are "so many cases" is because y'all are fucking obsessed with trans women being rapists. That's why there are millions of news articles foaming at the mouth every time a trans woman could have potentially sexually assaulted someone. The idea that society at large is protective over trans women is fucking laughable, especially with the amount of police brutality trans women face.

You can make this exact same shitty argument for Black men too and racists do it all the time. How many cis woman rapists are out there? Do you know how wildly underreported is that?

I don't doubt you seriously are concerned about rape victims but I also am very sure that everything you say and do is motivated far more by your need to demonize trans women than your desire for accuracy and truth. Because the only way we should be having a conversation about trans women who have sexually assaulted others is in a context which fully acknowledges their very real oppression, and does not view them as radically different from the many, many cis women who are also sexual predators. But again, you are more motivated by your bias against trans women than anything, so the vast underreporting of sexual violence done by cis women is ignorable while any single thing a trans woman does wrong is representative of a population-wide trait. Any evidence of trans women's oppression is written off while you pretend like there are people getting rich as hell off of fearmongering about trans women being rapists, because that's what people WANT TO BELIEVE.

Saying "trans women are rapists" isn't transgressive or brave, its the status quo. If you actually want to help rape victims, stop living in your fantasy world where trans women are catered to by the justice system.

[milkweedman]

some more feedback on the glittery terf repellant... I like the concept but i think that it reads a bit like an anti-misandry thing rather than an anti-transphobia thing. specifically bc of the "the existence of men" one - terfs don't have a problem with men, they're a hate group targeting specifically trans women. so it sounds as tho ur saying trans women = men, or that it's not even about terfs, but rather a statement from a "men's rights activist". hope that makes sense!

it is an anti-misandry thing.

if you think its impossible to be anti-misandry without being an MRA then im not sure i can help you. do you think that the mere existence of men DOES threaten people ? do you believe that the world would be a safer place if it was only women ? interesting. where have we heard that before...

this isn't directed at you specifically but rather at everybody who keeps misreading things, but:

Yes, radfems absolutely do hate men. The statement above is something they say, it's part of the propaganda they spread. If terfs specifically are somehow pro-men but anti trans-women (they're not, but lets pretend) then fine--I've never been talking about terfs, I've been talking about radfems. This entire time I've said radfems and nearly everyone talking to me has said terfs back. They're not the same thing--all terfs are radfems but not all radfems are terfs.

Radfems do hate men. I have no idea where you got the concept that they're fine with them. I've read a lot of their rhetoric over the years, both as research and as poison that seeped into popular culture and queer culture as well.

That is why my initial attempt at radfem proofing a post was to write: WARNING OP LOVES COCK THIS POST IS ABOUT COCK. ITS SO GOOD AND BEAUTIFUL ❤️ GOOD MORNING TO PENISES EVERYWHERE

Frankly, I have seen radfems still reblog things that are trans-positive, because they don't fucking care. I have never seen them reblog something praising how beautiful cock is though--presumably because it just disgusts them, but who knows why.

Anyway. Who exactly do you think "the existence of men does not threaten anybody" is for ? Who do you think would disagree with that statement, and why do you think I have been using it ?

I can give you some hints--anybody who is a gender separatist, or who believes men are inherently dangerous, is going to strongly disagree with that statement. Please look into what type of person that is, and what other things they believe, and then we can continue this discussion if you want. But certainly not until then.

Additionally, I fully intend to keep using my main banners, and just adding in one trans related banner due to the feedback that it could be misconstrued. Im not switching to just trans banners. This is both a space that is safe for men, and for trans people.

[butchbarbieagainstterfs]

this will sound harsh and controversial but i'm a pissed off transmasc who has been abused too many times. whenever i see the arguments about how transphobia also hurts cis women (like radcliffe's girlfriend) or how cis women will feel uncomfortable about trans men being forced to use women's spaces, i have to roll my eyes so bad. like sorry but this isn't about them!!!!! obviously it's true and no one deserves that but also stop victimizing cis people and pitying them when the topic doesn't even concern them! the people who are in danger are TRANS PEOPLE, not cis women or men who have actively or passively helped pass transphobic laws and fueled the trans hate train! i don't give a shit about how this affects my oppressors because it's their fault in the first place! i need people to stop shifting things onto cis women to justify not being transphobic because "it might hurt them too". like yeah it might but that's not the reason why you shouldn't be transphobic! the reason is that it's shitty and makes you an awful human being and it HURTS TRANS PEOPLE. end of.

People point that out in my experience because it shows that TERFs and other transphobes are lying when they say they care about cis women. What grooms a lot of TERFs into being TERFs is that lie. I feel like it’s important to pull their logic out from behind the feminism and pussy power smokescreens they like to use.

You’re entitled to your feelings and view btw, I’m not saying you aren’t. I’m just adding my own take on this and where in my experience that argument comes from. I don’t necessarily think most people are saying this bc they think the harm it does to trans people isn’t as bad or whatever. Transphobes sadly do not care about trans folk. But they will claim to care about cis people, particularly cis women, so pointing out that cis folk are affected by transphobia too shows that claim is extremely flawed.

[rf-times]

Since I barely see people touch on this subject often and you are one of the best radblr accounts, I want to share a thought with you and see what do you think about it. This will be a bit long...

So lately I have talked to a friend about how the conceptualization of the so called “peak trans” disconnected from the whole understanding of the neoliberalism ideology was regressive to radical feminism in many points, to the point of becoming one of the strongest backlashes we have to deal with currently. At first sight, this perception can sounds exaggerating because radical feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys had always touched on this topic criticizing the MEDICAL COMPLEX who profits from countless people's agony due to misogyny, homophobia and overall hatred for gnc people. Unfortunately, this powerful and accurate criticism of transgederism was gradually replaced when be a gc became so popular, almost like a queer identity without the glamour ofc but still interesting enough to appeal to some people. The main unity factor? Be able enough to define what is a woman! From the white supremacist to the liberal “leftist” /“feminist” who is just upset bc was called “transphobic” after devoting themselves to transactivism and want to vent about it to apolitical women who think men in dress are the only dangerous men on earth, everyone is welcomed and then the feminist resistance(called 'gender critical'), that was initially created to oppose to the censorship in academic feminist spaces who only accepts liberal approach of feminism while reject the rest, don't exist anymore but the effect of what was left of the gc movement is permanent. “radfem” also became an identity, “terf” too and anyone, literally, ANYONE who disagrees with transactivism/queeractivism, even if a little bit, are thrown in the same bag as “radfem” and “terf” and these labels CAN MEAN ANYTHING and the worst part is that we aren't even able to define ourselves bc transactivists/queers are doing it instead of us because they receive political capital from the liberal right and we have nothing.

Radical feminists aren't anti trans people in any sense, our criticisms are POLITICAL, not individualist. With that said, due to this polarized debate, many people do get attracted to radfem spaces bc of a lot of things except for feminism. Many women don't want to at least read feminist books, they just want to talk all the time about transactivists and think peak activism is fighting TRA's all day. There are also women who consume radical-leaning content like we consume products. They tend to think if they have enough feminist knowledge, they're shielded from misogyny and it also gives them a free pass to ignore/belittle other realities, since the other women are so inferior to them. But sometimes it just drains them bc the constant negativity without any real changes is emotionally damaging and add nothing in a personal level let alone collectively.

All these examples above are integral parts of the neoliberalism, this alienation, disconnection with reality and inability to uniting as a class bc things can have so many meanings and oppression can't be oppressive if you are empowered enough lol

This is why I think the conceptualization of “peak trans” often ignore strong social/political forces that controls our society and appeal away too much to a moralistic approach that was never present in Radical Feminism. I often see women here bragging about how rf can't be infiltrated by men(or male ideologies) and I wish it was real but it isn't. Radical Feminism does have a admirable story of resistance to male ideologies but thinking it wasn't already infiltrated with neoliberalism is bs. Even communism was taken by liberals and has been losing its essence day after day, since even some political communist parties in countries like Brazil are funded by the USA liberal right. Besides the negativity of my ask, I still believe in better days to all of us but I think the first step is to fight for radical feminism, the real one, not what people generically label as “radfem”.

Thank you so much for the ask, I really love getting stuff like this. It's definitely because people would 'peak trans' from different ideologies, many of which have little in common, from those who still believe in some form of medical transition as a good form of treatment to dysphoria, to conservatives, to people who have never questioned the medical industrial complex. Radical feminism is devalued and turned into an identity as you say and indeed many women who buy into radical feminism don't go into it with a sense of empathy or goodwill towards other women. At this point I find most trans discourse tedious and it's so clearly noticeable on here how a post making fun of trans ideology > post connecting trans ideology to larger feminist concerns > non-trans feminist concerns, in terms of attention. It isn't enough for us all to agree what a woman is, that isn't a coherent political movement.

It gets to the point where if I see a post where someone is talking about genocide or women being murdered or a graphic horrific cultural institution I find myself waiting for the inevitable part where they say "AND YET TRANS PEOPLE THINK THIS OR THAT" Like the only way so many radfems even talk about feminism anymore is solely through the lens of making a point about trans ideology.

[animentality]

So I'm gonna be blunt- this is gonna be me ranting about TERF shit in your inbox bc I just wanna get these thoughts out somewhere, nd if you wanna add on at all, feel free. Just know that if this makes u uncomfy/you wanna delete it, no hard feelings.

You know I stumbled across one of your terf posts and I just wanna- fucking rant-

Bc istfg they hate women no matter what they do. Not just trans women, but women in general. Nothing women do are like-

uGGGghhgh Okay for example; body hair. Either-

A) the woman doesn't look feminine enough/has too much/is accused of invading women's spaces (<- this one mostly applies to facial hair but yknow)

Or B) if they DONT have body hair, like- the shave, wax, etc etc, I recently saw a take that was like- "for every woman who SHAVES or WAXES, you yourself are FORCIBLY PUSHING PATRIARCHAL IDEALS ON EVERY YOUNG GIRL WHO SEES YOU AND ARE VALIDATING THE MAN'S OF WOMANHOOD. NO WOMAN SHOULD EVER SHAVE BECAUSE IT APPEALS TO MEN"

For fucks sake. I'm not even kidding that was essentially the take when you took away the flowery language

Like. Men can shave for themself, sure!! That's totally fine. But when the Women™ they claim to love and support so much do it??

BAM PATRIARCHY.

It's like. I get it. Women need to be Aware of Things In Their Minds™ bc the dangers of the world, of the patriarchy, and of misogyny are very very real- with this going double, throuple, quadruple for women of minority groups (stacking on n on). And I don't think that it's fair for us to be pushing shit on young kids/teaching them untrue/dangerous/innapropriate things.

BUT someone existing in a a public space near someone else doesnt fucking do that - most people arent fucking STARING at people's legs, nonetheless kids!! They've fallen into similar rhetoric that gets gay people killed for kissing in public, rhetoric used against people partaking in something of a different culture in public, possibly even similar rhetoric that was an excuse for racial segregation.

Yes women have a responsibility to make sure other women love themselves and their bodies. Yes it is important we show a variety of body types to make sure people don't feel alone. NO WE DONT DO THAT BY BULLYING WOMEN WHO ADHERE TO THE TYPICAL BEAUTY STANDARD/LIKE TO PARTAKE IN "STREOTYPICALLY FEMININE" BEHAVIOR

Like. You do know blaming the Women™ you love so much for indulging in "harmful stereotypes" the patriarchy and society pushes is just mean right. Because due to human variation, some women - physically or emotionally - are gonna fall into the stereotypes (physically in regards to body shape, hair/eye color, etc etc). Stop blaming women for falling into stereotypes and start blaming society for pushing said stereotypes oh my god

Sorry this was so long. Just. Fucking. Bullshit, all of it.

This is not a terf friendly space, feel free to complain at me all the time every time!

They are so annoying.

They pretend they're feminists but they just want the excuse to be female bullies, lol.

Calling your hair ugly or saying you have man hands.

[hehimdykesrock]

Hi. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on your reasoning for encouraging the “Bi/Mspec Lesbian” label? I’m not a fan of the label but at least want to try to see where you’re coming from??

Bc as a lesbian who previously identified as bisexual, I honestly find the “Bi Lesbian” label invalidating to both identities. For context, I identified as Bi for quite a while bc I had been told that Lesbians don’t include nonbinary people or trans women. Which is not true!!!

Mspec sapphic people already have the terms Bi and Pan (and Queer, Sapphic, etc.)- Lesbian is the ONLY one that doesn’t include men. Adding it to the Bi label just caters to the fear of not being ‘gay enough’ that society drills into mspec sapphics. Bi women/enbys are still queer. A feminine gender preference can be described just as easily with the term Sapphic. The “Bi Lesbian” term just reinforces the harmful idea that Lesbians ‘jUsT hAvEn’T mEt ThE rIgHt GuY yEt’.

A personal anecdote: in the past few years, I have begun to actively avoid telling men I’m not close to that I’m a Lesbian. Because they frequently want to take it as a challenge. To “convert” me. The “mspec lesbian” idea actively puts Lesbians in danger by just repackaging conservative ideologies under the veil of being *progressive*. (Invalidating the validity of sapphic identities/relationships, and that ‘ALL women are attracted to men/can be converted’. I have also seen mspec lesbians say Lesbians are terfs as a justification for the new label- while the justifications themselves sound transphobic??? The jist of it usually is- ‘Lesbians are transphobic. The identity is defined by not being attracted to men- So why can they like trans women but can’t like binary trans men! Even though I totally believe that trans women are women and trans men are men!!!’)

Sorry this is long and repetitive. I wanted to try to put as much of my reasoning as I could. While I can empathize with why the bi lesbian label was created (bc I identified as Bi for a very long time + thus became heavily aware of biphobia within the LGBTQIA+ community. Even from Lesbians.)- it ultimately implies that Bisexuality isn’t considered “gay enough” and unintentionally perpetuates the idea that Lesbians can be converted into liking men.

My first thought is this sounds like some radfem Gold Star Lesbian bullshit lol. And yeah this is super long and repetitive, so I'm not gonna worry too much about the quality/conciseness of my response. Guess ill try to just take it peice by piece. I usually don't entertain shit like this but I'm bored today so let's try it.

Why do you find someone else having a different experince than you invalidating? Have you considered that this may be a personal insecurity more so than the responsibility of the people who's identities you're uncomfortable with?

The bisexual label has bever been exclusive of trans/nonbinary people, and the misconception that it is is itself transphobia in action. You say you changed your mind about that label after learning that it isn't exclusive of trans people, congratulations. That doesn't mean that everyone else using the bisexual label just hasn't come to that conclusion yet.

Lesbian has historically included bisexuals and etc. It's never been exclusive, but there have always been exclusive people in every queer community.

Do you think there is any true distinction between bisexual history and gay/lesbian history? Why can't we share words? Why are we all obsessed with being unique? Why does it matter so much if we overlap? Isn't that the point of community? To share and to be different and have overlap, to take joy in each other's experiences? Why are you so intent on defining exactly who can be what? Is the point of queerness not to acknowledge our inate and complex humanity, to say "I am unquauntifiable"? It is to me. But maybe that's philosophical, in which case my practical down-to-earth questions are: who gets to make the rules about who gets to be what, who is going to enforce these rules, and what tool of violence are you granting them to do so? Is it you? Is it the government? Is it an organized elected council of queer elders? Are the freaks who don't follow the rules exiled, shunned, imprisoned?

As for these other words we "already have" like sapphic, have you considered that we "already have" lesbian? Lesbian has historically been a word for women(etc) who are attracted to women(etc). Why did we need to make new words to separate each other? Why did we need sapphic when we already had lesbian? I don't feel that making and using new words is wrong and I support anyone who wants to use these labels, I'm just demonstrating that the logic behind that point of yours is identical when flipped. Lesbian has always been here for people like me, it was the only word we had for a long while, so who are you to rewrite its history?

Your personal experience of queerness is not universal. Words mean slightly different things to everyone, that's how languages and humans work. And that's a good thing. That's the point of all this!

The kind of people who harass and assault lesbians don't care about this shit. Are you seriously trying to blame a whole group of queers for ... queers being harassed and assaulted? The straight cis guys who are chasing and trying to "convert" lesbians already don't think of women and lesbians as people. They're not gonna sit there and debate the finer points of someone's identity before they decide if they want to assault them.

The bigots don't care about our labels. They don't even respect whether someone is actually queer or is just someone they perceive as queer. Outside online discourse like this, a faggot is a faggot is a faggot.

I do not have any patience for anyone who believes certain types of queers make the rest of us look bad. Like seriously why are we still doing this? Also you personally right now with this ask have just repackaged dangerous conservative ideologies under the veil of being *progressive*! This is some seriously puritan stuff you've said here! You say it yourself that you have been a victim of being sexually pursued against your will and that you take certain precautions in life to prevent that from happening, and then you turn right around and blame a whole demographic of people *with that exact experience* for bringing that experience onto themselves *and onto you*! What!

Literally nobody is saying all women have the ability to be attracted to men. I have literally never seen or said that apart from this very ask right here. I guess it could happen, someone could be saying that somewhere, but in that situation I'm gonna call them a misogynistic ass and consider them to not be speaking for all lesbians everywhere. And I don't think it's too much to ask that others use the same level of critical thinking skills in that situation.

And as for the people you have seen saying "all lesbians are terfs" those people are lesbophobic. Those are lesbophobes. I don't know what else you want me to say about that, I don't really see how some people being lesbophobic should impact whether or not a whole bunch of other people are morally correct (?) in using the word lesbian.

Ask rating:

4/10 for nonsense and contradiction

[thorne1435]

honestly a relief to hear that you didnt know about it! the petty infighting is exhausting and feels so universal when youve been in spaces where it is the way of things. and yeah you nailed it with the supposition that trans men have it easier bc we arent always actively demonized the way trans women are in the current transphobic zeitgeist... for some reason people have flatly accepted the narrative "terfs want to Save females from transition" as if forced detransition and medical neglect and sexual violence (among other violences) to Fix us into being breeding stock is something to be happy and humble and quiet about. and further as if trans men *arent* ever demonized as predators seducing away young women -- we get called lost lesbians and butches, but the butches and lesbians of yesteryear were also predators seducing girls away from proper womanhood. and thats not even getting into baeddelist horseshit. its all so maddening.

This is something me and my mom talk about sometimes.

My step-mom fell down the alt-right pipeline, so she's constantly spewing some garbage about how transgenders are a threat to children, even going so far as to lightly suggest I was a pedophile when I came out to her. But my mom acknowledged a trend in that regard.

Gay men were seen as pedophiles in the last moral panic. Trans women will be seen as pedophiles in this moral panic, until it ends. I think it's fair to call this the misandristic side of homophobia. We are perceived as queer men, so we are persecuted in a way that applies to queer men: accusations of pedophilia. So, it's interesting to me to see how it works on the misogynistic side of homophobia.

Also, I find it really funny that lesbians, and now trans men, are accused of seducing girls away from their "proper" lives, because in my mind the only way that would work is if the lesbians and trans men have better fucking lifestyles. You can't exactly seduce someone without being tempting, can you? Don't point that out to a TERF though, because if you do they'll internalize it and god only knows what would come from that...

Anyway, yeah, fuck all of this. If trans men are so dangerous(?) to trans women then I'll just wait to get bit in the ass by one, which presently hasn't happened.

At the very least, it seems way more useful to direct our attention towards the actual threat to our existence posed by transphobic legislators instead of to random trans people who are threatened by the same things as us but might also be a threat somehow in some shaky way that doesn't make any fucking sense.

[velvetvexations]

I also should have looked up the statistics to double check before sending my original ask, but I was referring to a specific news story I followed about a black men attempting to gain custody of his child, only for the mother to get it despite her history not severe neglect, and the child ended up dying in her care. I didn't want to spell that all out bcs it's an incredibly painful thing to think about, but I should have specified what I was referring to. That is also def not just a result of misogyny, but of racism, since black men are often seen to be absent or even dangerous parents. I am sure there are cases where men have an easier time getting custody, especially rich white men, but as will all situations the story is more complicated when you bring in intersectionality and especially race. I just think it's important to remember that a black man wasn't just being denied his child because he was black, the specific way society views black *men* was part of the problem.

As for the working in more dangerous jobs point, I brought that up because yes, men do tend to work those jobs more than women do, but where MRAs get it twisted is that that's only true *because* of misogyny. Women WANT to be firefighters and loggers and soilders and do hard labor, it's just that the fields are male dominated and riddled with misogyny so women often can't get an in or leave after being treated like shit. Additionally, it is also an issue with workplace regulation and capitalism devaluing ALL life in favor of profits. MRAs are right that more men work these jobs and thus die more and I can see how they would feel that their lives are devalued, the issue is that they blame that on women when the real culprit is misogyny and capitalist deregulation of workplace safety. They also bring up the draft, which again I can get how some men feel that their lives are only of value if they are willing to die, but that isn't bcs women are valued above them, it's because the draft is inhumane and NO ONE should be forced to go to war at all, and certainly not against their will. Like genuinely the fact that men have to sign up for the draft just to vote is insane to me and I can't blame any man for being upset about that, it's just a lot of them have a deep seated hatred of women and thus blame them for it rather than seeing that the real issue is forcing *anyone* to go to war.

(I also recall them using the Titanic disaster to show that society doesn't value men's lives but uh...yeah no the Titanic is one of the only instances where women and children were prioritized. Historically in shipwrecks women and children were left to die while the men escaped, but I can kinda get the irritation a little given Titanic was such a big deal it's overshadowed the true history of protocall in maritime disasters.)

I also meant to add in that in the RBG case the man wasn't being denied the tax credit just for being a man, it was because he was unwed and that tax credit was intended for families where the wife was absent, dead, or for whatever reason was incapable of providing care for an ill family member. I suppose you could even argue that it was less a case of him being punished for being a man and more him being punished for being unwed, thus a manifestation of amatanormativity and heteronormativity, but it is true from what I read they fought the ruling on the grounds that he was facing sex based discrimination, and the case went on to provide legal president to fight types of sex based discrimination that primarily harmed women.

I just also think it's important to fully understand what hate movements believe and how they can make their ideas seem rational and appealing, because it's the only way to counter them effectively. Hell the modern queer movement deciding that TERFs *only* hate trans women and have no other targets is why radical feminism is so prevalent in queer spaces. They can't recognize TERFs if they aren't screaming about trans women, and the TERFs know that. If you don't understand what your enemy believes and who they are against and how they doctor their arguments for recruitment you stand no chance of eradicating them. MRAs did successfully recruit women, very feminist women in fact, with some of these very talking points, because they held off on the blatant misogyny until they knew they had you on their side, just like TERFs will pretend to not hate trans people until they've already got you. It's important imo to not boil their entire belief system down to "incels who want sex" even if that is a major part of it because then we can't teach people to watch out for the less obvious dogwhistles and understand what the actual issue behind these points are and thus how to fight them and not get drawn in with seemingly reasonable arguments AND how to recognize the difference between someone drawing attention to real issues men face and someone who just wants to spew hatred.

I honestly kinda wonder if the current pushback against transandrophobia is born of the backlash to the MRA movement, but from people who didn't pay attention and learn the rhetoric and how to counter it and now think anyone who talks about any men suffering for being men in any context is a closet MRA who must be shown the door immediately, but idk that's just speculation on my part.

But anyway, I should have been more clear and checked my sources better, but tbh I just felt like the ask was getting too long and it was late and I had a headache so I just ranted about what I remembered of the movement. I'll be sure to be more clear next time I send something in, I don't want to spread misinformation or get any ire drawn your way.

However I do want to say comparing trans men and trans masculine people in general to MRAs is ridiculous because even when you break down the few few slightly valid points MRAs bring up before laying on the Horrifically Agrressive Misogyny that's clearly NOT what trans men and mascs are taking about, the two movements imo have so little in common it's legit ridiculous to compare them, and it's also ridiculous to act like some jackasses using the concept of misandry as a way to shut down women means the entire concept of the patriarchy harming men at all is so throughly tainted we can't even let trans men talk about it or coin language to describe anti-masc bias especially in queer spaces. Imo anyone comparing discussions of transandrophobia with MRAs is missing the point and has no idea what they're talking about re: trans mascs *and* MRAs.

Thank you for the clarification anon, though I'm still not totally sure about the custody thing because I've heard different things since your first ask. It's good to have a dialogue.

[hollowedskin]

It genuinely frightens me how easily I could have fallen into the terf hole.

My whole life was trauma, often (but not always) perpetrated by men. The issue was that every man I knew would give it ago, and also some women. So it felt like the women were making choices, but the men seemed to just be designed to be abusive. (At the time I did not know any trans people.)

There was a time when I would block people for being men, when I thought it was too dangerous to talk to men. All the men in my life were legitimately dangerous people. This was also the time I discovered feminism, and the idea that women were equal to men and did not deserve to be oppressed and abused. Previously I had believed that this was just what life was. I was raised in a bad place.

I think if in that vulnerable state I had been approached by terfs, if the first people to validate my trauma had been terfs. I would be in the hole now.

It frightens me how easy it would have been. Being raised in a cult-like group, I was so succeptible to further indoctrination. Being so lonely and hurt, it would have been easy to get my trust and twist it until I felt that perpetuating my trauma on other, different women was the right thing to do, that it would be keeping the "right" kind of women safe.

I know there's nothing special about me that would magically keep me from being a bad person, and I'm so incredibly grateful that the people I did meet were accepting and steered me in the right direction. That I'm not just bullying people because I'm hurt.

And I also don't think that I'd be as far along in my recovery if I had that belief that men were biologically evil still in my head. How could you possibly feel safe? Learning that the abusive men in my life were making active choices to do that, that it wasn't natural or uncontrollable.

Meeting men who were just as trustworthy as my women friends, meeting kind and wonderful trans people, the world feels like a safer place. It feels like a place I can heal in.

But the knowledge is always there that I could have chosen differently, and become a type of person that I despise; someone who chooses to hurt people BC they have been hurt... I think we need to acknowledge how easily you can fall into harmful radicalism.

u ever see someone with extremely fucked up views (or actions) and think wowww if a couple of things in my life went the tiniest bit differently that would have been me