#but like they're women. cause i like women.

[cheerfullycatholic]

So I'm currently a pro-choice Christian, but I'm starting to lean towards pro-life recently? But I'm worried about the implication of banning abortions.

I'm worried about how abortions don't stop our even slow down when illegal, the same amount of them happen just dangerously.

I'm worried about miscarriages and how they're sometimes treated as a murder case in abortion illegal places.

I'm worried about doctors refusing to give life saving abortions to those who need it in face of persecution.

I'm worried about young children who can't give birth safely being forced to.

I'm split about the 1 baby vs 100 fertilized eggs question, where if the 100 fertilized eggs were really as sentient as a baby why would we save the baby every time instead of the 100 fertilized eggs.

I think it's best to give out birth control and sex education and make it easier to be a parent and I don't think abortion is what you should run to automatically, but idk. I got suggested your blog to help, what do you think?

Hi! I think your concerns are important and I'd love to talk about them (I'll number them all so nothing gets jumbled up) (my answers are below the cut because they're long)

1. Firstly, it's been reported many times that abortion rates do fall when made illegal or hard to get, while birth rates rise. Illegal abortions are much more dangerous, but I do not believe that is a good enough reason to allow abortion, because no matter what someone dies, which isn't good in any situation. More help for pregnant women and their babies is essential no matter the circumstances, but especially after abortion is made illegal so that women don't have to feel like they have no other choice but to have a dangerous back alley procedure. And to me at least, it doesn't feel right to say "abortions will happen anyway so we might as well keep them legal so they'll happen safely" because what else could that apply to? Murder? Driving drunk? Doing drugs? They'll happen anyway, after all

2 and 3. In America at least (where I'm from), there is no law that has made miscarriage illegal. One that caused a lot of ruckus was the Texas Heartbeat Law. People claimed that the law would criminalize miscarriage care and would lead to a bunch of investigations, but they rarely happen, and if they do, it's usually either because the police have reason to believe illegal activities were involved in the death of the baby (like illicit drug use or the baby being left to die or killed after being born alive) or because authorities don't actually know their own laws. There was one case where authorities got their own laws wrong in Texas, but the case was dismissed quickly. And just from everything that I've read so far, it seems to me that any legal action taken against someone for procuring an abortion would be taken against the abortion providers themselves, not the women getting the abortions

And this is what the heartbeat law states this, which mentions "life saving" abortions (emphasis added);

“Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

"Spontaneous abortion" being a miscarriage. So at least in Texas and the other states with similar heartbeat laws, any doctor who refuses to treat women for fear of being prosecuted is wrong and should lose their jobs for medical malpractice

4. For any high risk pregnancy but especially for cases which involve young girls, there are steps in place to keep them safe which include increased monitoring, bed rest, certain medications, and early delivery. Young girls in the past have been able to give birth prematurely safely and without ending the lives of their children, but sometimes delivering their babies before viability is necessary and their babies die, but this is different than abortion and is not illegal. Again, if a doctor refuses to do an early delivery in order to try and save their patients, they are guilty of medical malpractice

5. I hate that thought experiment because the goal of everyone who asks it is to try and get you to say a born baby is more valuable than embryos and it's dumb. Whoever you choose to save in this made up scenario does not determine who is more valuable. All human life is valuable, choosing to save a born baby over a preborn baby doesn't diminish the value of the preborn baby, it just means you made a choice to save the born one. Which arguably (inarguably?) saving the born baby makes more sense because what are we supposed to do with the 100 frozen embryos after we get them out? They'll start to thaw and die pretty quickly if they haven't already from the fire in the ivf building

All around we can definitely do better in making sure women don't feel like their only choice is abortion like so many do (Silent No More has a ton of stories from women who felt like they had no choice or were forced into getting an abortion if you want to read them). I think our focus should be on addressing why women get abortions and doing our best to remedy their problems instead of killing their children. That's why I really like Let Them Live, an organization that raises money through community supported fundraisers for women who ask for their help. They have so many cool stories of women who accepted their help and are so glad that they chose life. If we really came together as a community that offered life affirming love and care, no one would have to be killed, and I think that's something that God would like, too. He did say after all that He hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16-19). I can't think of anyone more innocent that little babies

(The first two links lead to Secular Pro Life, who have a lot of good resources and studies)

I really hope I was able to address your worries well enough (I'm still a bit sick so apologies if I didn't make much sense). If I forgot or missed anything or if you have questions please let me know, and if anyone has anything else they'd like to add (kindly, leaving your stinkiness at the door. Refer to my blog's title quote if you're confused), please feel free to!

[woman-respecter]

oh and one last thing. i cannot believe how leftists and queers are treating sarah mcbride. it makes me sick to my stomach. i can't stomach it actually.

bullying minorities who happen to be "privileged" i.e. rich, white, etc is so fucking gross and easy like bullying a child (and is part of the reason for all the antisemitism btw! since they think we're all whiter than aryans and that we are the most privileged). seeing everyone jumping with joy to harass sarah mcbride a trans woman who's an easy target since she's white and trans (white trans women bad unless they prove themselves by getting arrested for....palestine with jvp like hunter or they threaten to kill biden for cool points like ethel) for sucking up which. all minorities have to do for a place in this world is INSANE.

these are the SAME PEOPLE calling everyone a terf and being misogynistically distrustful of women/feminists because we're all a potential zio- um terf is so sad because 1) transphobia is a serious problem among cis women which should never be downplayed and a lot of cis women are transphobic. i know this because i've faced transphobia lite since i have a bit of an adams apple as a cis woman which leads to transvestigation :/ but 2) the "solution" isn't and will never be to act like cis women are the enemy/worse than men/to be misogynistic towards us either. 3) it's all so sad because these people are doing so much harm by being misogynistic "in the name of good/in the name of trans women" but they're just bullies who also hate trans women but get to hide it because they're #allies. they're "allies" who spread hate in the name of a people who want to be left alone and they spread that hate because deep down they hate trans people and want to make them look bad (not downplaying misogyny that is present in the trans community but yh). these people are trying to stifle the 4b movement in the name of trans women while trans women like veondre mitchell dont gaf (obv trans women are not a monolith). it's so evil. who needs enemies with "allies" like this? (also if you wanna deal with the transphobia the solution isn't to misogynistically try to shut 4b down. but they just hate women and it's never been about trans people so!)

anyways back to the topic. sarah mcbride really breaks my heart. they hate her and they've been treating her so terribly (theyre giving her the jew treatment 😓). no one has her back and it goes to show how the left is a lost cause. if you arent what they want, if you step out of line, they treat you like the conservatives treat you.

yeah i’ve been somewhat following the sarah mcbride saga thanks to the wonderful mariacallous and it is disgusting. i think in part what happened was that post calling her a “zionist” got popular so people wanted to look for more reasons to hate her. these days everything comes back to the Omnicause.

i also think that the trans girl tankies are kind of having a crab bucket moment about a trans woman being successful through grace and intelligence instead of posting graphic threats at people they deem subhuman from behind an anime girl icon on a microblogging website. they hate to see a class act thriving.

sarah mcbride is doing the best she can in a very shitty situation, and people who should be her allies are just making it worse.

[jesteriajunovix]

(Spoilers) Just a Reminder to Curly Sympathizers

Jimmy and Curly are not "Problematic Favs". They're literally thematic vessels for THE problem.

CW: Mentions of SA, and Abuse

Curly (And Pony Express as a Company) Never Cared to give Anya Pysche Evals. Curly only started to care for that when it doubled as an occupational hazard to him and his image.

Curly actively vouches for Jimmy as a crew member despite his "struggle" on earth. I don't see how it'd be far-fetched to assume that involves some form of Misconduct with the fact Curly literally says

"You've gotten through difficult situations before" RIGHT AFTER talking to Anya the actual Victim.

Curly doesn't understand why Anya was talking about the locks on the sleeping quarters and moves past it to reinforce the company's logic. [The Company and Curly can not be bothered to consider or provide actual safety for women. It is an afterthought that resembles a cruel apathy towards women's perspectives in a corporate work environment.]

Would Curly have given the gun to Anya if she asked? Probably not. While that is somewhat debatable It rings to the shitty isolated environment where Anya would have to take up such a mindset. Not to mention Curly is clearly super pals with Jimmy, so if that was a concern he'd probably take Jimmy's (and the rest of the guys) side considering he later took jimmy's side under the fact he sexually assaulted a woman.

The first thing Curly says to Jimmy after trying to consolidate Anya is "I Can Fix This". Curly enables Jimmy to find ways to get out of taking responsibility for the harm he did to Anya.

Curly buckles to the fact his mind is more focused on his position and reputation as a Captain rather than the personal impact Jimmy's harm has caused Anya. This issue is an occupational obstacle to him first and foremost.

Jimmy: "This can be remembered as a tragedy".

Jimmy: "The Tuplar crew was never found."

Jimmy: "You're standing at the top. Feet in cement. Right?"

Curly: "...Right."

And his complacency and dissonance of that truth leads him to do absolutely nothing.

I have seen so much art, and discourse treating him like he wasn't an active enabler. You know what. Fuck it. Half of this is going to double as an Anya Post. thinking about how people disgustingly twist her character to redeem two shitty men who are completely at fault irks me so much.

Anya

The fact that Anya doesn't really get to build herself as a character outside of the scenes that reinforce her tragedy, and antagonist environment feels super sucky.

The purpose of such a narrative direction is of course meant to feed into Jimmy's resentful apathetic attitude towards her, and emphasize the cold unfeeling corporate entity that hired her to be on the tulpar, but as a narrative choice, it still feels rather cruel to take in. Jimmy literally erases her personhood from his mind and only internalizes her presence as a threatening womb while taking the rest of the games runtime to focus on himself and the other men on board.

I see many renditions of Anya in fanart. Adding to her character in ways people weren't really given the time to appreciate or take in during the actual game due to how little she's left with.

I find her canon resolution both annoying and interesting due to this type of interaction where the fans are being pushed towards an interpretive play pen where they are motivated to give Anya more characteristics, quirks, and perspectives than she was allowed to have or emphasize within the game.

Using such field of creative deliberation to redeem the men that actively harmed her is such a gross way to use that play pen.

To get into some interpretations

A pretty important moment occurs after Anya runs out of the medical room during the painkiller scene with the thought:

"I have to believe that our worst moments don't make us monsters"

I think there are quite a few different ways to take this line in this moment, but to share my own perspective I believe it most likely stems from these potential factors:

Anya is trying to maintain a metric of empathy and trust to continue to control herself in the current conditions and stresses she's under at this moment. The needs of the crew can not be upheld without this kind of thinking while under the orders of her abuser.

Anya still cares for Curly and is disconnecting the harm he caused from the rest of his humanity as a person who is also suffering.

Anya is reflecting on her own legitimacy while the internalized trauma she went through makes her feel alienated from herself. Accepting the actual piece of shit that is Curly allows her to hold faith in herself as a person through the shared correlation of pain and "mistakes" as she percieves it bonding her with Curly.

While somewhat ambigous I think its important to generally understand these types of potential layers when interacting with the themes and subjects presented by Anya as a character. Ideas which are critical and dissective of Anya as an actual Subject above a simple generalized understanding of her peripherally as a victim.

also Idea 2 doesn't make Curly vindicated. Curly was the only member that Gave Anya some sense of care (As ingenuine as that care was). That dependency is toxic and was unfortuately potentially of mental necessity to Her. To reframe it as a point for Curly to show he was better than what he presented himself to be so deeply annoys me with how uncritical that reframing is when addressing the actual faults and mentality that led him to his bedridden state. With how little Anya is already focused on, it feels like that interpretation and dynamic hands Curly the position of "Subject" while Anya still remains an "Event" to some people.

That kind of thinking not only significantly reeks of a lack of indulgence in actually trying to further interpret the facets presented in Anya's character, position, and mental state, but also dilutes the meaning to be had in analyzing Curly as an enabler. The framing of Curly as an "Enabler in Rehab" or "Tragic Casualty" feels so utterly ignorant, redundant, and enigmatic to my senses when he is so utterly undeserving compared to Anya who barely gets any other elaboration or analysis from the community outside of "awww wasn't that sad" or sensationalization around "The Event".

I WOULD go into Anya's logic leading up to her death, but thats a post and analysis for a different tumblr user to take care of. I honestly just gradually have developed new ways to hate the Mouthwashing fandom, so I really needed this to make mental space for the next few horrible bizarre takes i'll inevitably see about this game.

[citrusraindrops]

I realise I'm not the intended recipient of this post, but you posted it, so here's some GC 101.

TERFs/Gender critical people don't police gender. They think it doesn't matter, and that it shouldn't matter. They want to abolish it.

We can agree– the concept of 'gender', meaning the socially constructed roles forced on men and women, is useless and harmful. It's meaningless how long your hair is, or whether you like pink or blue, or if you like romance movies and wine or fishing and drinking beer. Those things are arbitrarily connected with whether you're a man or a woman, and those arbitrary connections, which do far more harm than good, should be completely ignored, so that people can be free to do what they want.

Now, if gender doesn't mean anything, what's left? Sex. And sex means a lot. Because one of the sexes is, on average, taller, and stronger, and more sexually aggressive, and can impregnate, and the other is smaller and physically weaker and can be impregnated and receives the overwhelming majority of sexual violence. So there's a good reason for sex segregation to exist; or, at least, for female-only spaces to exist.

But, according to what GC feminists think, sex is the only thing that matters. So, a body-building woman– completely fine, more power to her (although they might critique the heavy focus on appearances/disordered eating present in the bodybuilding community). A man with a baby face? Completely normal human variation. He's still male, and he's still a man. A woman with a beard? Well, that's out of the ordinary, but some women (female) do have hormonal disorders that cause facial hair to grow, and they shouldn't feel like they have to change how they look just because of what society thinks (most RadFems are rabidly anti-shaving for that reason).

"But!!" you say. "The TERFs DO police gender! They criticise trans people for how they act and dress and look just because it's not in line with the gender expectations of their sex!"

Well, that's somewhat true. A lot of radical feminists dislike and are heavily critical of the way trans people –especially trans males– present. But that's not because they're breaking gender roles: As established, GC's are for that. It's because, to a gender critical perspective, these males are acting like their conformity to the roles and expectations used to oppress women makes them women. They're acting like being feminine makes you female. And to GC's who are dedicated to showing the opposite –that female does NOT mean femininity– this is a deeply offensive, reductionist and harmful view.

So, when GC's criticise a transwoman for wearing makeup or skirts or false eyelashes, they are criticising not the break from the expectations imposed on people based on sex, but the use of these things to evidence the claim that he is a woman.

The people who police your gender will police your gender even if you're cis.

Eat them.

[amysubmits]

“you know why some men are so full of shit? because the world has failed them.” yeah … this is bullshit, and honestly pretty insulting to “good” men, many of whom have been dealt a shitty lot in life, who aren’t toxic or abusive. some men are full of shit because it benefits them to be full of shit. if your reaction to having a shitty life is to become sexist (or racist, or homophobic, etc) you’re a bad person.

a world in which 91% of heads of state (and 92% of CEOs, and 72% of industry leaders) are male has not “failed men.” a world in which men own 50% more wealth than women, while women do 300% more unpaid labor than men, has not “failed men.” a world in which 50 countries allow men to legally rape their wives has not “failed men.”

Having privilege in one area doesn't exclude you from being failed in other areas. Look at the suicide rate, the shorter life expectancy, etc.

The fact that there are men who have had shitty lives who don't become racist or sexist doesn't mean that other men weren't failed by the individual people in their lives or society at large.

If one woman experienced trauma and didn't become a drug addict, that doesn't mean her sister who is a drug addict didn't become an addict because of their shared childhood trauma. That's really simplified black and white thinking to say if I turned out okay,they're just choosing to be an addict! Mental health and coping methods are so much more complex than that. Everyone who goes through trauma is just trying to survive as best as their brain and nervous system know how. Some of us end up with coping methods that are seen as pro-social and "good", and others end up with default trauma responses and coping methods that get labeled as "bad". Both are harmful in different ways. And I'm speaking as someone with a lifelong "good girl" coping method.

There are endless factors in how people turn out. As one simplified example, if a boy had abusive and neglectful parents who publicly claimed to be feminists, and then the first person in that kids life who REALLY made them feel cared for, seen, supported, encouraged was sexist? That kid is a lot more likely to grow up sexist than another kid who also had a traumatic childhood but didn't see examples of people being good to them personally who had shitty views. It's just bad logic to say if some men live under patriarchy and become feminist, then the sexist guys are just inherently shitty people...

I'm not trying to say we should look fondly at sexist people. Of course not. But if you really think that there are widespread problems in men and that those things aren't caused by a systemic failure in some way, then you're arguing that a larger portion of men are just born inherently 'bad' somehow compared to women. Believing that a group of people is just somehow inherently bad or lesser is damn near the definition of prejudice.

[jerrythebug]

Some fast drawings I made for Twitter

[umblrspectrum]

every ship is simultaneously real and non-real depending on whether it fits my narrative at any given moment. schrodingers ship. schipdinger

[faggotcitosis]

oh my fucking god.

1) every study talks about men. how is this relevant for all the trans men in the tags thinking they'll take T and it'll cure their depression. please explain to me. show me the research.

2 & 3) they're clearly saying if you take a small dose you can control what changes happen in your body. did you read the tags here? so many people saying they want a deep voice and no bottom growth?

not almost everyone, everybody has both T and E, men and women, period, because they're more than sex hormones - they're physiological. not having WILL cause medical issues. i described them as opposites didactically. they're all steroids, they all come from cholesterol. they will never be the same level, one pushes the other around. high E suppress T. high T turns into E (which is why gymbros get boobs). P is a precursor to both T & E. you will never have all of them as the same amount, one pushes the other around.

5) i agree that that plays a big part on the high control of it. but testosterone is factually more harmful if taken incorrectly than e or p. like, this is a fact. it will severely fuck up your liver. it's way easier to overdose than e or p. the doses cisgender men have, which is considered physiological, will have an increased risk due to the nature of the hormone, yes. what i was and am talking about is people injecting it willy nilly and having it way higher than a physiological dose. i am literally talking about people wanting to get it illegally (and not following a guide) or doing it like a recreative drug. also e and p are used in birth control, which you can get otc, which is why diy is easier for trans women. how are you going to tightly control a substance that is used for reproductive control?

did you read the tags? are we in the same post? i never said doctors prescribe testosterone like tictacs (btw some are! hello detrans wave!. but thats not the point here).

trans ppl who take a physiological dose of t are literally fine. and not what im talking about. i never talked about that. did you the screenshots???? they are literally talking about irresponsible use of a steroid. steroids are a specific class of drugs that r controlled because they will fuck you up in different ways (hello steroid induced cushings!).

of course conservatives think any use is irresponsible use. that's why i dont advocate for making access to t harder, i advocate for trans people being educated and fully aware of hormone physiology, benefits and risks.

[suguruuuuu-chan]

T4t Zosan save me....save me t4t Zosan...

[fromtheseventhhell]

I want to make a longer post about this someday but: I think Arya's TWOW arc is going to include her coming to terms with her identity as a Lady. This has been an ongoing conflict with her since her first chapter and I think her flowering in winds is going to mark a turning point. The theory of her having an apprenticeship with the courtesans holds a lot of weight and the idea of Arya going through puberty among a group of unconventional women she's fostered a positive relationship with is just too perfect. It would really have an impact on Arya reconciling her personal idea of what a Lady should be. There's also a lot that she could learn from them in terms of courtesies, communication, appearances, body-language, etc. that would elevate her current skill-set and ways her relationship with them could push the plot.

Not to mention she will undoubtedly reclaim her identity as Arya Stark, and her being a Lady is inseparable from that. Arya Stark is a Lady Stark and being a Lady is a social position, not a measure of how well someone preforms feminine tasks. She shouldn't have to relinquish her position because she doesn't fit patriarchal standards. That's not to say that she's ever going to be the perfect example of a traditional Lady but what I think will happen is that she becomes capable of playing the part. She plays several identities throughout the series but she's always been Arya underneath, so I think it's appropriate that she learns to adopt a "persona" that's part of her. Her remembering Ned putting on his "Lord's face" (+ the various examples of other characters being separate from their ruling persona) makes me think that Arya will be donning her "Lady's face" when she makes a return to Westeros.

[lala-blahblah]

I will never make this because it would be for an audience of one (me) but ever since reading "If we Were Villains" (story about serious drama kids in college who perform shakespeare and deal with a murder) I have been entertaining the thought of a crack fic crossover with High School Musical The Musical The Series where the staff decides they will no longer put on shakespeare after the tragic accident that happened at Thanksgiving, because Shakespeare plays would only increase the tension and drama. So they hire Ms. Jen who decides their spring play will actually be High School Musical (which exists in the 90s in this universe) and it ruins the vibe so much that everyone gives up on being dark and mysterious because they're universally pissed at Ms Jen for making them learn choreoraphed basketball dancing.

[aromanticannibal]

Be careful to read the guidelines too

(sorry, I'm not used to writing IDs, I hope this is fine)

[ID start] We try to be conservative when marking a page one way or the other. Do not flag unless you're reasonably confident about your decision.

Not enough to mark as anti-trans Being a conservative, a SWERF, a bad or mediocre ally, ace-phobic, being concerned with "free speech" and giving voice to "both sides".

[Example post 1] Abigail

"Sex work", BDSM and p*rn are ways of the patriarchy to indoctrinate you, silly liberal handmaids.

Being a SWERF, a conservative, ace-phobic or racist. While these traits are despicable (and also common among anti-trans people), the focus of this dataset is specifically on anti-trans hatred. Also, don't tag as anti-trans just because someone likes an anti-trans page whose main focus is not anti-trans hatred.

[Example post 2] Grandma

If someone is transgendered, I think we should respect them, even if they used to be a boy, no matter their lifestyle choices. That's what Jesus taught us.

Reasonably benevolent ignorance, incorrect terms. When in doubt, assume good faith and don't tag someone or some page as anti-trans just because they're uninformed, a mediocre ally, post problematic jokes, or don't take a stance.

[Example post 3] The Freedom Report

In this new interview, we asked radical feminist Germaine Greer what she thinks about gender ID laws.

Being concerned with "free speech", "political correctness" or giving a platform to "both sides" While this is an excuse often used by conservatives, it's not anti-trans per se. Assume good faith. Also, don't mark criticism/hatred of trans people that is not linked to their being trans (eg. "Manning is a traitor of our country").

Mark as anti-trans "Protecting womyn's spaces", alt-right transphobia, restriction or opposition to gender-affirming care and enby-phobia.

[Example post 4] Abigail

We must protect women's spaces from the female erasure that TIMs want to impose upon us.

Using common anti-trans dog-whistles "Protecting women's spaces", "Female/lesbian erasure", "terf is a slur", "trans-identified-(fe)male", "TRAs" are all very frequent dog-whistles among anti-trans people. Nevertheless, beware of the laundering of anti-trans positions through language that merely sounds progressive ("AFAB spaces", "AMAB-socialized", or advocating against HRT on the grounds of it being "assimilationist")

[Example post 5] Racist Frog

More degeneracy from the liberal snowflakes. Have they decided which of the 72 genders they identify as today?

Common anti-trans strawman arguments However, tag "identify-as-helicopter"-style jokes only if the context is anti-trans (since they are also sometimes used by mediocre/problematic allies). Generic anti-LGBT pages can also be tagged as anti-trans (eg. pride parade = degeneracy), as well as obvious false flags and troll identities that, if popularized, would make discussions about actual transphobia harder to articulate ("AFAB trans woman").

[Example post 6] Tiffany

Nowadays it's trendy to say you're trans, they're just heterosexual males that hurt our cause. You're either male or female - stop. Also, it's perfectly fine to respect the spaces of biological women.

I'm not a transphobe but… If a person is a self-declared "not a transphobe" only towards trans people who are not visibly trans, are heterosexual, post-op and/or "don't fight for their rights too aggressively", still mark them as anti-trans. Nevertheless, mean words that are used to communicate perceived problems within the trans community (tenderqueer, theyfab, transmed/truscum...) are out of scope.

Not enough to mark as trans-friendly Being transgender, having some decent minimum standard like "hurting people = bad", or supporting the overall LGBT community.

[Example post 7] Julie

My endocrinologist told me I should switch to gel or patches. Thoughts?

Being transgender Don't assume someone is not transphobic just because they are trans or non-binary themselves. Try not to treat people differently just because of their gender, age or orientation.

[Example post 8] Your Average Feminist Page

Another trans woman has been found killed in Texas. This violence must really end.

Condemning physical violence Being against people being killed or raped is, for most people, a very low bar of expectations, even if they're very conservative or religious. It's true that most conservatives will simply avoid posting anything at all, but err on the safe side and don't tag as t-friendly.

[Example post 9] Your Average LGBT Page

We must all stand against homophobia and transphobia, and support gay, lesbian, bi and trans people.

Condemning "homophobia and transphobia", supporting "LGBT" Many people just really think of "gays and lesbians" when they say "LGBT", and they can still be biphobic or transphobic. Don't tag as t-friendly unless a post is *specifically* talking about trans people.

Mark as trans-friendly Openly supporting the transgender community or calling out transphobia.

[Example post 10] Adria

Shoutout to trans folks who feel hopeless in the current political climate ❤

Openly supporting trans or non-binary people, calling out transphobia (and transmisogyny within the community itself), advocating for access to gender-affirming healthcare.

[end ID]

what with the current Stuff happening, i figured i should remind everyone to download shinigami eyes here (for chrome, firefox, and firefox nightly on android) and to continue to flag transphobic and trans friendly pages!!! you can do that by right clicking on a link to the page you want to mark and selecting shinigami eyes -> mark as anti-trans/t-friendly . lets help keep the internet safe for our trans siblings!!! also it would be really fucking funny if we could get m*tt flagged as transphobic

[lucienne-thee-librarian]

Okay but also because I'm a pedantic bitch...in relation to that post I just reblogged explaining part of gay-on-gay bigotry...what if some people are just assholes who happen to be gay, or bi or trans? And they're all for oppression or just plain cruelty as long as it's aimed at other people? Like that's also something to consider.

I don't actually think, any longer, that "internalized self-hate projected outward and also suppressed envy for someone who's doing and being all the things you were convinced into not allowing yourself" is...all there is to this phenonemon. And I wish we'd stop fixating on that quite so much just because we want to be frankly, nicer than some of these people have ever deserved. It's always more satisfying on some level, to imagine your enemies as Tortured deep inside (whether it's because you feel a bit malicious or you just want to believe that there's a way to reach out and heal them with kindness.) than to admit that Sometimes They're Just a Shithead.

Now, do I think that complex can be a big part of it? Oh yeah. And of COURSE, different people have different motivations in different amounts and yadda yadda yadda. No group of people, ethnic, gender, political or otherwise is a Monolith. (For one thing, when it comes to these Pick-Me Gay/Trans pundits and Influencers, money and clout should never be left out as an explanation. Just saying.) But that's the point, isn't it? Any ONE explanation can't explain them all completely.

Tbh, I think we need to consider some people are just bullies who happened to be born not cis or straight. And even if they were bullied at one point for their identity, they learned absolutely nothing from the experience except Don't Be On the Social Reject Side. So they moved their thinking just enough that "woman who likes women" "man who likes men" "I just happened o want to be a woman instead, or a man instead despite how I was born" could be put in the Safe category and they fight for that. Everyone else though, is still fair game and even a fair target. Some people don't just want power to escape oppression and live their lives in peace, they WANT to BE the ones oppressing. Like, do we ACTUALLY understand that LGBT people are humans too and that that includes the bad side?

It tracks a lot better too, when you consider that a lot of people like the masc4masc gays are openly racist and fatphobic. "No fems" Yes but also "No fats. No Asians." Christ, I could think of countless examples of white thin (and sometimes but not necessary cis) queer people doing that sort of thing. I'm sure y'all can too. This idea of some poor lost soul Tormented by Self Hate and Envy of the Freedom of Others doesn't do shit to explain that. Like, even if the two things coexist and they can, it doesn't explain that part.

I honestly just think the uglier but more accurate truth is that lot of queer people aren't all Hashtag Gay or Trans Rights or aren't Liberal out of any sense of justice AT ALL but only self-interest. Being an activist because you're a member of an oppressed group is like, entirely normal and fine of course BUT it becomes real clear when someone's framework of ethics and politics is PURELY "I think me (and people I personally like and approve of) being oppressed is bad" and literally not one inch deeper.

You can tell because if it was deeper, why would they find it so easy to turn around to a fellow queer/trans person to jeer at and humiliate and throw them under the bus if they think they're a Deadweight to the group by being a Weirdo I Don't Want to Stand Next to, Eww...or if they just don't personally like them? Why have you clearly spent absolutely no time unpacking any of the prejudice and biases around gender sexuality (or GOD FORBID race) that society throws at you.. at least no more time than it takes to rationalize yourself out of the category of Should Be Destroyed and Oppressed?

We are not immune from this sort of terminally self-interested activism. I just feel like we'd get a lot further as a society, as a community, if sometimes our analysis of bullies and assholes didn't fixate on finding some deep pain and trauma inside them, to explain their actions in a way that makes them look more tortured and less malicious (even if we say, even mean, that it's not supposed to be an excuse). Sometimes people are just racist, or fatphobic. Sometimes lesbians or gay men or bi or trans people just want to be judgmental bullies too.

Sometimes the reality isn't Tragic Villain Backstory. Sometimes, its just a selfish, deeply pathetic person refusing to become any less, because it's easier not to; even if you had a unique chance to see how the other side lives, a chance your straight cis bully peers didn't get by virtue of their identities.

[unhonestlymirror]

Guys, who's gonna tell her?

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact who?👀

[buckleysdee]

funny how it's really everything about how they did bt that makes it seem like they're actually doing buddie canon

[brownwomanisland]

I always hate the "transphobia also cause harm to black and brown people" as a defense bc why do you think implying that we're all male-appearing makes sense??? Because they do not mean that we all appear female-like - they never do. It's never, "omg they're like those brown and black women, so slender and fine and gorgeous". Nope, always straight to the hard edges and monkey-esque comparisons.

What kind of racist dog whistle is that??? And then the liberals eat that shit up uncritically like yes, "trans acceptance helps fight racism" but not connecting that they're being racist and astonishingly LOUD about it.

"If y'all can accept these ugly fucks then y'all could accept trans people." Like oh, okay, I guess racism is back in style but in the cool woke way. No n-words, just racist comparisons.

https://www.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/s/Eu621vLGxs

literally "my dick isn't male genitalia it's a female dick" 💀

What this guy sounds like: