#but what i mean is more that trans men do not have the same history

[that-satireguy]

'Trans men don't have a history of being killed/scapegoated/badly treated.'

Trans men don't really have a history at all but yall just want to keep harping on about how invisibility is a privilege.

[dianight]

Let's talk about transandrophobia. And by that I mean let me monologue about my findings browsing the tag and checking related blogs.

For context, most of my (second hand) interactions with it are from additions to the posts of transfeminists where random people antagonize them. Also from knowledge about how a certain user who helped popularize the term and gets referenced on posts about it (and other adjacent pawns) just happens to be a piledriver for callouts that just happen to target trans women. So you will excuse me for being biased and not going into this with a naive mindset.

And I will say that I've engaged with this in significantly more good faith than it deserves. My hope was that perhaps most people using the term were doing it out of ignorance and not malicious intent. I haven't really "counted" or done any actual note taking for this, it's more of a general observation that coalesced over a few days after I did all that digging so numbers are rough estimates and not accurate numbers. I checked about 50 pages on both "latest" and "top" on the tag, aswell as checking the recommended blogs.

Ignoring certain users who use the tag to highlight how absurd the mere concept of it is, since it's just mainly one woman having fun(?) cluttering (neutral) the tag and a few others mocking posts about it; we can roughly put the people who talk about transandrophobia in 3 groups. There is potential for overlap and I reiterate, my good faith is going to skew this toward a more positive vision than reality.

The first group are mostly trans men and a few trans women who would define transandrophobia as transphobia targeted at trans men, which is not at all what the term means nor what its history or actual use is. This group was around 30-40% of the posts, but one has to keep in mind that this was from going over the posts with the tag on their blogs. Posts that would talk about their experiences being the targets of transphobia and calling it transandrophobia.

Not to sound condescending, but getting treated differently to your cis peers (before coming out OR even knowing you are trans), pushback against your transition and toward the closet, bureaucratic hurdles and general hostility to being "the other" is not a transmasc exclusive thing and it's in fact "just" transphobia. Even the supposedly unique to trans men experience of having issues with reproductive health... also happens to trans women, it's the general transphobia of medical professionals. It manifests in different ways, that's it.

Most of the transmascs on this group seem to be under the impression that transandrophobia is an analogous term to transmisogyny that simply describes the targeted transphobia to transmascs and transfems respectively. I understand their posts and it was painful to read many of them, but ultimately what they describe is called transphobia. Most of the (few) transfems on this group were making additions in defense/support of trans men on those same previous posts.

That's as good as it gets though. I really hope the 30-40% estimate is real because the alternative is grim, and as a disclaimer I have (over time) blocked a massive amount of those users who go on posts about transmisogyny to start fights. Those hostile users are very likely to use the tag and be part of the second or third groups, which means that accounting for all the people I've blocked the first group percentage is likely to be <30%.

The second group are cryptoterfs. Or alternatively, people with ideas so bioessentialist that they are indistinguishable from cryptoterfs. I have found only two blogs that were openly "gc" and straight up interacting with open terfs, but many of them had their rethoric and semirelated posts all over and sometimes even the recommended blogs would give it away. Possibly 10% of the tag users belong to this group.

The main giveaway beyond the previous ones seems to be a really transphobic view that what trans men experience as transphobia is really just misogyny. So when they experience that misogyny as trans men it's called transandrophobia. Don't ask me what logic this is, but I've seen it repeated on their blogs so whatever is going on in their brains they seem to commonly agree that trans men are "just" experiencing misogyny. The obvious implication always, always being that trans men are women, a very transphobic idea.

There were some users who are part of the previously mentioned overlap. They will have some posts that tangentially allude at that trans men = women idea but never quite reblog or interact or expand those transphobic views. But they would also be part of the third group.

The third group are transmisogynists. No other way to put it. And I don't mean it in the casual way, we are all kind of transmisogynistic due to society and that's it; I mean it in the openly in opposition to transfeminists and actively spreading hateful and harmful rethoric kind of way. More than half the users of the tag are part of this group.

It's a key difference but a very telling one; where the first group talked about their experiences and how they are affected by transphobia (incorrectly labeling it) the third group engages in reactionary behaviors, always blaming/harassing/critizicing transfeminists posts. It's a genuinely weird feeling to see a post you agree with, along the lines of "men benefit from patriachy" and the "critique" from these users being "how dare these [insert misgendering term] insinuate that trans men are oppressing them".

Reading anything in bad faith, calls for "unity" while at the same reblogging from and interacting with known callout spearheads, honestly shocking hostility to trans women all over their posts and a general very open opposition to any transfeminist theory. Like I was genuinely speechless at some of the posts.

Literally calling random trans women transphobic. Screenshots without context to make it seem like the OP is saying the literal opposite of what she was saying. Congratulatory posts about getting people banned. Straight up callouts.

And I was hoping that the first group would be the majority, with a few bad apples and the expected bad actors.

My conclusion is very simple. Stop using the term transandrophobia. It has no good faith uses, what trans men experience is transphobia since misandry is not a real structural force and misogyny is. Most of its users are hostile to and a danger to trans women in this website, and somehow terf rethoric is generally accepted by them.

Transandrophobia doesn't exist.

[paper-mario-wiki]

Could you elaborate on how rhythm can greatly feminize a voice? I’d never thought of that and I’m very curious :o

hmm. im showing my ass here just a little bit with how i choose to phrase this, but this isn't really based on any "method" and all the "research" ive done into it is very cursory and for my own situational needs, so bear with me for a second:

you ever heard of "Gay Voice"?

it's an internationally recognized phenomenon-- crossing language barriers even-- that pinpoint a speech pattern, or cadence, which is most commonly associated with gay men.

the basics of the "gay voice" are 1) an increase in your spoken pitch variation (meaning you have a greater range in how high AND low your voice goes), 2) holding vowel sounds longer, and 3) a speech effect relating to the "S" sound, which people often lump into the "gay lisp" category of speech.

now, this may seem like an insane place to start, given the history of what the "gay voice" means in society, but like. that doesn't matter. the reason it's a "gay voice" is because it sounds effeminate. now, to be clear, "gay voice" does not mean "speaking like a woman"-- the research shows that the connection is slightly more complicated than just "gay men sound like women", but the aim of this exercise is to approach femininity from a familiar MtF perspective when you really don't know where to start otherwise.

as is almost always the case in the persecution of the Male Homosexual under a patriarchal social ruleset, their perceived flaws aren't based in how far from masculinity they stray, but instead how closely to femininity they approach. so too is the case with the trans woman: the inherent "shame" is your rejection of masculinity, and your embrasure of femininity. ergo, starting from a "gay" speaking standpoint is already in the direction of femininity.

if you're interested in how im becoming reacquainted with my own voice and would like to do the same, start there, if you can, and pay attention to what you do with your voice unconsciously. yes, im really asking you to sit in your room and do the Gay Voice to yourself.

how high up are you going? how low? are you speaking faster? maybe with more of a staccato in your enunciation? maybe you're speaking more softly, or more sharply. maybe there's a lilt that you don't usually put on that feels good. maybe you're flexing your tongue in ways you're not used to, hitting new sounds on familiar syllables. or maybe your lips are a little tighter, or looser than usual, projecting the voice outward differently.

pay attention to these things. become conscious of what you're doing with your mouth to make the noise called "speaking". pay attention to the words you choose, and the path your sentences follow. become aware of these things, and compare them against the kinds of people you hope to sound like.

you can also try different cartoonishly effeminate voices, like the sultry "Jessica Rabbit" seductress tone. try that on for size too. how does it feel to waltz around words? do you feel like speaking slightly slower helps you maintain a greater control over the delivery? or perhaps you feel it makes you sound too stilted? maybe you're also putting some vocal fry into it, how does that feel?

this, to me, is one of the most helpful places i've found to start on this particular issue. i apologize if some of this sounds silly, or even misguided, but doing this has been a very practical and affirming exercise for me. i hope you found it useful in some way too.

[genderqueerdykes]

howdy, this may be a stupid question but I saw a post of yours talking about how men can be lesbians and I'm just a little confused? can some men be lesbians just because they identify with the label? and If people of any gender can be lesbians what does being a lesbian mean? my understanding may be flawed so I would really appreciate help in understanding :3

hello there! not a stupid question!

yep, men can be lesbians simply by identifying with the label, that's all there really is to it! that's how every queer identity except intersex works, in fact! in recent years, we've begun welcoming non binary people into lesbian and gay spaces- so why can't we open the doors to other people? this can be for a variety of reasons why a man would identify as a lesbian, transmascs and trans men who started in the lesbian community and still feel a connection to that identity, bi/multigender men, genderqueer men, genderfluid men, intersex men, bi and pan men who feel like their attraction is gay and lesbian instead of gay and straight, lesbian trans women who are also men, the sky is really the limit!

it's a bit complicated to define what terms like "gay" and "lesbian" truly mean, because they don't exist in a static vacuum that can encompass everyone in that given community. every lesbian has a different definition of what lesbian means. many lesbians believe that it strictly means cis women being attracted to cis women, which is definitely not how lesbianism works at all. no two queer people will ever define a queer term the same way. a lesbian is anyone who identifies as one. it can be a queer woman, non binary person, or man, or a gender well beyond that. or no gender at all.

for example, there's a loooooonnnngggg history of trans women who are also gay. many trans women still identify as gay and with the gay community even well after transitioning and not identifying as a man anymore. this has been a well documented experience since the dawn of the modern queer community in the United States, so why can't we extend the same to men and lesbianism?

when i say i'm a lesbian, i mean a lot of things. i do experience queer attraction to women ofc, but for me, lesbianism is about community and expression. it's about my love for other lesbians, dykes and sapphics, not just women. i'm a lesbian-oriented person. i resonate with the community, history, and culture. i feel right at home hearing about other lesbians' struggles and experiences with gender, expression, identity and sexuality. i see myself in other lesbians, dykes, and sapphics, and just because i'm (partially) a man doesn't mean i have to give all of that up!

i hope that makes sense! most queer identities don't have a concrete definition when you get down to brass tacks. for example "genderqueer" is not something that's easily defined at all. people love to argue about what it "really" means but there's no one answer to that. the same goes for lesbianism. the experience is too broad to be able to be defined simply by saying a lesbian is is a woman attracted to women. identity and lived experience is too varied and complex for that

feel free to have any more questions you may have! if you'd like, i highly recommend looking into the life and works of Leslie Feinberg, a transmasculine butch lesbian revolutionary and queer activist who had to transition into manhood in order to feel like hirself as a butch lesbian. zie identified as multigender and never gave up hir lesbian identity, even after living as a man for many years. it was vital to hir butch lesbian identity :) thanks for stopping by, i appreciate you asking!

[doberbutts]

Tbh I think the comparison to white people might be some simple us vs them thinking (maybe not all the time, though). White people complaining about oppression = nonsense/overeaggeration (if you're myopic), therefore comparing transmascs to white people is a way to call what they say nonsense. Or, if you're under the impression oppression=good person points, then white = bad/wrong, therefore transmascs are bad/wrong. Idk. Lots of these folks have some black/white thinking.

I think the answer is much easier than that.

The majority of people I see using the race analogy to draw a parallel of white vs black racism and trans man vs woman oppression are white themselves. Not everyone, but I would say my casual scroll of Bad Take Havers usually reveals whiteness here.

It does not surprise me at all that the very same white people doing this do not have the nuanced racial understanding to be able to reflect how, for instance, both black communities and latine communities experience racism in different yet similar ways, and how there is both bad blood and also shared history and solidarity between both communities, with many people who exist somewhere in between (afrolatinos) and people who exist completely outside of this equation (other marginalized races of color) or on the fringes (other mixed people of color but with only one of the involved races in this venn diagram) that also may experience their own oppression.

And so, they don't even think to use the comparison of black and Latino understanding, instead choosing to reach for white vs black racial dynamics. They don't have the understanding necessary to get why that's neither a good comparison nor is it a fair one to use especially when this particular conversation was started by trans mascs of color and how prior conversations regarding trans men and mascs occupying a marginalized gender were started by both (cis *and* trans) women of color and trans men and mascs of color.

It also does not escape my attention that those insisting that not only do trans men and mascs have privilege (something I do not completely disagree with, although I think as always it is more nuanced than "have" vs "have not") but also that trans men and mascs are specifically an *oppressor class* are also largely white, and show an inability to understand that "privilege" does not always equally translate to "oppressor". This comes to a head when discussing trans men in powerful positions- teachers, doctors, politicians, business owners, religious leaders, even celebrities- and whether they are pushing harmful rhetoric or if they are holding the line and refusing to budge.

And, while not true in all cases and certainly no one is perfect, because people are people and thus imperfect at the best of times, the majority of all trans people in power hold the line and refuse to budge regarding harm to our community. We can all think of examples- usually celebrities- of otherwise, but those pushing for laws and change are generally hand-in-hand with each other keeping step and refusing to leave their fellow siblings behind.

This does not mean that we cannot *contribute to* or even *lean on* transmisogyny- remember, there were cis women on the Supreme Court gleefully voting away abortion rights even though it directly affects them. There is no identity that makes you immune to bigoted bias, and no identity that protects you from doing harm to others. That is on each of us to do better, to each out in fellowship and solidarity to our fellow humans, and to lift each other out of the pit.

Much like how a Latino friend of mine may experience privilege in that he does not experience the antiblackness I do, and much how I may have privilege that I speak English as my mother tongue and he doesn't in this largely English-language-dominated country, neither of us are inherently each other's oppressors unless we are acting on oppressive bias. Intentionally or otherwise.

Oppression is action, not existence.

But again, I am not surprised a group of largely white people do not understand nearly enough of this nuance as it applies to race to then be able to apply it to gender.

[genderkoolaid]

I really respect Jules Giles-Peterson, her work is great, and she's pretty good at consciously trying to avoid casual anti-transmasculinity from what I've seen. But I do really wish she could talk about transmasculine history with the same depth she talks about transfem history. Not because she should HAVE to– I have no issue with her focusing mostly on what she knows best. But every time she brings up transmasc history I'm like!!!! if this is a topic you want to bring up there's SO much more you can be saying here.

I just read this article by her:

And I think it's in general good! I was really happy to see a well known transfem scholar writing something on this topic, since so many people seem to have blinders on when it comes to the very obvious intersection of trans and abortion issues.

Additionally, she uses this as an opportunity to talk about transfem/transmasc community and the support networks between us, which is lovely. She illustrates not only the connection between trans people and abortion but also how that has been an opportunity for collaboration and shared resistance.

However... it feels to me like there's weirdly little focus on transmascs in this article about trans abortions? It feels like more time is spent rehashing the "trans men went stealth and moved away, trans women formed communities in the cities" model rather than exploring the relationship trans people have had to their abortions throughout history. She acknowledges that the chance to achieve that ideal "cis passing married successful straight man" life was slim, but then she doesn't explore what possible experiences OUTSIDE of that slim chance where like.

And I fully acknowledge that it's hard to talk about a lot of transmasc history because so little has been recorded. But that doesn't mean nothing has. While not technically related to abortion, I feel like it would be well worth it to bring up Ferdinand Alexander Bruce, given that he is a historical trans man that we know gave birth. Even more, we know it because he wrote an memoir, so we actually have his own words in his gender and life. Bruce was stealth at certain points in his life, but his transition was public and he was outed repeatedly, leading to constant discrimination. It's not known if his pregnancy was the product of sex or rape. He is an invaluable look into the history of transmasculine pregnancy and the relationships trans people had with pregnancy throughout history. This is the kind of trans man in history we don't think about because his life did not fall into the standard narrative of "transition, pass, marry a woman, get outed after death."

She also brings up the association of trans women and sex work, as a point to how trans women would have established a network of care for trans men using their knowledge as sex workers (a group that has always been closely tied to abortion). I think this a really good and interesting point, but I also think she misses the opportunity to explore the history of trans men in sex work. Sex work and general promiscuity has been associated with FTM crossdressing throughout history (also see this). Many trans men and nonbinary people present as feminine cis women while doing sex work today. There was even an anthology released recently on the experiences of transmasculine sex workers.

I think this is a good article but it's just... disappointing to see people approach this topic, that so much can be said about, and barely even scratch the surface of saying something new. Especially when her work on transfem history is so good.

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

Transmasculinity Throughout Time: Hatshepsut

Kicking off this first post in what I hope to be a long series by saying that I am just a guy who likes obsessively researching things and I am absolutely not a historical expert, and in this case, not an Egyptologist. My perspectives and interpretations are my own. You are welcome to have other ones.

Hatshepsut is known as Egypt’s first and only female pharaoh, and is discussed as such throughout almost all material about them. I will be nonetheless using they/them pronouns to refer to them, but during their life they used both masculine and feminine pronouns. The tendency to project modern ideas onto historical figures is common. Especially in the case of people who exhibited signs of transmasculinity, it is common for their entire lives to be reduced to “women who cosplayed as men for power” which is problematic for obvious reasons. Cis men coveting masculinity for the pursuit of power in a patriarchal society is never a reason they are actually women, yet it is okay to do this with historical transmasculine people in the name of feminism? There is a clear double standard. So, I will be using gender neutral pronouns because we can’t really know if Hatshepsut was alive today whether they would identify as a woman, trans man, nonbinary or as none of those identities. I am simply going to be discussing the history and some of my interpretations.

In the context of ancient Egypt, the pharaoh was a living embodiment of the masculine god Horus. Hatshepsut embraced this role after coming to power, ascending from the position of queen regent alongside a child king once their former husband Thutmose II had passed, to “his majesty the king herself.” As their rule progressed, they were depicted as more and more masculine in statues and reliefs, using the same ceremonial fake beard as male pharaohs, muscles, and other masculine signifiers. They didn’t stop wearing makeup and jewelry when presenting as a male king though, which some historians take as evidence to support a female gender identity - it could mean that, but it could also just mean they liked to be fashionable and didn’t subscribe to restrictive gender roles!

Like kings before them, Hatshepsut emphasized their connection to the gods by telling a story to justify their rule. However, the story they told had to be exceptional - and it was. Hatshepsut’s throne name, Maatkare, translated to “truth is the soul of the sun god.” This demonstrated a connection to the sun god, Amun or Ra, and to Maat, the tradition of maintaining harmony in ancient Egypt. The story was that Amun had appeared to their mother who had conceived Hatshepsut for the purpose of being king, commanded by the god of creation Khnum, to “fashion [them] better than all gods” with “the great dignity of a king.” In carvings, Khnum created Hatshepsut as a little boy. This explanation for their lineage is especially interesting because it emphasizes their connection both to their mother’s bloodlines and to being the child of Amun, not ruling as just a queen regent, but as a king.

During their rule of 20 years, Egypt’s trade flourished and there was an immense period of construction during which countless buildings and statues were created, and temples renovated. Unfortunately after their death, extreme measures were taken by Thutmose III to erase all records of Hatshepsut from existence in order to preserve the line of male kings. These efforts were primarily successful, and much of their history has been lost to time. There are many things about Hatshepsut that we will never know.

[catinafigtree]

Hi, do you have any tips on how to be comfortable being a Muslim while being queer?

I've been trying to do that for a very long time, focusing on my faith in Allah, but it's a bit hard and I always get demotivated randomly :(

Hey! Salam! Sorry for the kind of late response, moving houses has been hectic. This will be a long response (sorry), so I will put it under the cut.

I want to preface this by saying every queer person is different. I don't know the specifics of your identity so I am going to cover both sexual queerness and gender queerness.

My biggest obstacle in nurturing my relationship with Allah was believing that the way I am was haram, and even that I was cursed by Allah. I no longer believe this, but it was a long road.

Sexuality

I don't believe that homosexuality is haram. The common claim that the story of Lut is about homosexuality is full of holes and inconsistencies and it's largely based on the Christian religious tradition, even if the grammar of the Qur'an doesn't align with the Christian tradition (eg. the Qur'an uses the word "banaat" for Prophet Lut's (as) daughters. Bannat is plural, meaning 3 or more daughters, and in the traditional telling Lut (as) has 2 daughters).

Here is a really good study by Nahida Nisa:

I recommend reading all of Nahida's things because she's an amazing writer.

And a video from Dr. Shehnaz Haqaani's (PhD, Islamic Studies) podcast "What The Patriarchy":

and you can find her blog here

These articles from the blog, Lamp of Islam are also pretty good. He is a hardcore Qur'anist with some strange opinions, so peruse his blog with caution.

Letting go of the belief that the way I am was haram and that Allah had cursed me was the most critical part of fixing my iman and overall nurturing my relationship with Allah.

Also, it doesn't make any sense that The All-Merciful, Allah would make someone with an innate attraction to the same gender and then forbid them from "acting on it".

The Prophet (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam) never punished anyone for homosexuality, after his death, his companions debated whether or not to punish homosexuals and they could not come to a conclusion.

Gender

The Qur'an seems to acknowledge the differences between sex and gender. For example, the word for 'man' in the Qur'an is rijal and the word for 'male' is dhukran. And the word for 'woman' is nisa, but the word for 'female' is untsa. You can read Lamp of Islam's article on the meanings of these words here.

There also may be a vague reference to intersex and/or gender non-conforming people in verse 42:50.

There are also some hadith that seem to imply that gender non-conforming people were accepted around Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam). Prophet Muhammad's (Salla Allahu alayhi wa salam) wife Umm Salama (Radi Allahu anha) had a seemingly close friend who was then called a 'mukhanath', named Hit, who was described as a 'male who exhibited effeminate traits' was was welcome into the private women's section of the Prophet's (Salla Allahu alayhi wa salam) home. Today this person might have been a gay man (who displayed effeminate traits by accepting the "woman's role" (🙄) in relationships), or, more likely IMO, this person would be considered a trans woman today.

Hit was punished by the Prophet (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam), but not for their sexuality/gender expression, they were punished for describing a woman's body to a man, which was possible because they were allowed into both men's and women's spaces. The punishment of Hit is often used as 'evidence' to support homophobia and transphobia, but they neglect to mention the specific reason that Hit was punished.

You can read more about queerness in Islamic history here.

The link above takes you to Muslims For Progressive Values, they also offer marriage services for queer Muslims and interfaith couples, specifically for Muslim women seeking to marry non-Muslim men.

Here is a link to MPV's video series, but massive trigger warning for the comment section.

And a second MPV video series.

And another article from MPV.

More Tips

As I said, learning about LGBTQ Islamic History helped me a lot.

Keep your relationship with Allah between you and Him. Only share it with people who you 100% trust, because religion is extremely personal.

Find your people. Whether online or in-person, a community of people like you is important.

Know that Allah knows you, your identity, and the way you feel. Ultimately, Allah is your creator and we will only return to him. And we, as queer people KNOW that this is the way we were created. Nobody can tell you that who you are is false because they have no way to know that.

Block. Block. Block. Block. Block anyone who is being a problem, who might become a problem in the future. Block them all. Block Islamophobic queers, block queerphobic Muslims. Protect your peace and your relationship with Allah at all costs.

Here are people that I block quickly: anyone who has outwardly queerphobic or Islamophobic things posted on their page. Salafis and Wahabis. The black flag freaks: those with black flags in their user names/bios. I block people for the comments they leave all the time. Generally, I don't wait for them to do something, I block them on sight.

You mentioned that you struggle with low imaan sometimes. It's important to know that fluctuations of imaan are normal and completely natural. But I'm assuming since you've sent this ask, you always come back, which is what's important.

Here is another video from Dr. Shehnaz Haqaani's (PhD Islamic Studies) Podcast for Muslims who struggle to practice.

And a TikTok from @/soundous.boualam:

My biggest tip for building faith is to start slow.

Pray one prayer a day at first, and wait until that prayer is deeply ingrained into your habits, then add another. I recommend starting with Isha before bed. Don't try to do everything at once. You'll burn yourself out.

Build up the fard actions. Your prayers, primarily.

If you can take on more, add in the dhikr after prayer (subhanallah 33x, alhamdullilah 33x, and allahu akbar 34x). Or add dhikr in throughout your day. I use an app called Azkar that I set to send notifications to remind me to do various worship activities.

When I braid my hair I say alhamdullilah every time I cross a piece over another.

If you can, it might also help to put a poster or picture on your wall with your favorite Qur'an verse, hadith, or Islamic quote on your wall, or make your screensaver a reminder to remember Allah.

You can also buy or make a beaded tasbih bracelet, sometimes having something on your wrist can make it easier to remember.

I also like to spend 20-30 minutes every morning after Fajr to just spend time with Allah, talk to Him, and read the Qur'an.

But also remember that you don't only get rewarded for outright acts of worship. You get rewarded for caring for your body, taking a nap when you're tired, eating food, drinking water, caring for pets, and spending time with family. All of that stuff is worship.

Be easy with yourself. Allah does not want hardship for you (2:185).

And I'll leave you with a Qur'an verse.

It was We Who created man, and We know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him that [his] jugular vein. (50:16)

I hope this helps you some. I love you. Allah loves you. May Allah bless you with peace, imaan, and His abundant guidance and mercy, Allahumma Ameen.

You can ask questions in the comments or in asks if you want.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/768731859531235328/im-a-cis-woman-who-sometimes-likes-to-roleplay-as?source=share

yeah, anon, along with people pointing out that drag is a thing that exists and most drag queens/kings identify as cis outside of that performance (though plenty don't), there's also all kinds of sexual roleplay that doesn't involve wanting to be that thing 24/7. lots of people love to play "doctor" who have no desire to actually go to medical school and become real doctors, because the sexy version is fundamentally different from the non-sexy one. why would playing with gender be any different from that? of course it's true that some people do try those things on as kinks and then it awakens something in them - in the same way that most of us who are into anime knew a "guy" who really liked crossdressing cosplay and would always jump at the chance to do it, and now that person is, well, no longer a guy. sometimes it can be a way to try on an identity that you are considering but not yet sure about. likewise, there are more than a few drag queens who end up realizing that they are trans women down the line. but many more who don't! anyway, my point was that i went through this journey. i used to have a lot of fantasies about having sex as a man specifically, with both men and women - and i played with the idea that i might be trans or genderfluid. but for me, i realized that a lot of the appeal of it was that it was temporary, something i could turn on and off at will (and not just in the sense of gender-expression, but like a complete physical transformation). i wasn't interested in being a man if it meant i stayed a man. i still wanted to be a woman most of the time. (also, i identified as bisexual at the time and these fantasies largely went away around when i realized i was actually a lesbian. i'm not sure what exactly that says, maybe that it was more rooted in anxiety around women's expected "role" in sex than it was about actually wanting to be a man? maybe that the idea of being with a man was more appealing if it was gay, closer to the thing i really wanted? who knows) from when i've talked to trans people about this, a lot of them say it's easy for someone for whom the answer was "i'm trans" to in retrospect see signs everywhere - and therefore assume that the same signs mean the same to other people. and of course, they often feel like they lost years of their lives to an identity that didn't fit them - of course they want to save others from the same fate! but it's just that we all have a bias toward seeing the world through the lenses of our own experiences. that it meant one thing for them doesn't mean it means the same for you, especially in isolation. most cis people aren't totally wedded to everything about our genders, either, and a lot of us play around and experiment with gender in our own ways. (so basically, i see it as similar to those "comphet lesbian checklists" that were floating around tumblr a few years ago - yeah, a lot of those can be signs you might be a budding lesbian, but half the shit on that list is true for women who turn out to be completely heterosexual, too, a lot of it's just about the bullshit of female puberty) again, useful to think of it like anything else. religion is one that comes to mind: oftentimes, a strong hyperfixation on a particular religion or the culture surrounding it can be an early sign that you want to convert to that religion. lots of muslim converts, for instance, talk about being fixated on middle-eastern/north african culture or islamic history for years before they converted. but also, there are just as many if not more people where those hyperfixations turn out to be fleeting ones, or even where it remains a lifelong passion but is purely academic (you meet a lot of them in academia, naturally).

--

[thenightling]

Dear newbie queer kids, We appreciate the sentiment but stop "correcting" the older LGBTQ+ community. And by "correcting" I mean trying to force them to adopt your language. "Actually, it's pansexual if you're attracted to any gender. Bisexual means only men and women." (I really was told that one today.) "Actually if they're attracted to anyone despite gender and even to non-human entities in works of fiction that's omnisexual." Guys, you may not know it but what you are doing is what we'd once call bi-erasure. A little LGBTQ+ history: The word bisexual is still relatively new for a lot of people. In 1973 when David Bowie came out as bisexual, a reporter misunderstood that to mean he had both male and female reproductive organs. Even today I've stumbled upon people who think bisexual means "nonbinary." meaning "I don't identify as a man or a woman." The only connection the words have is the "bi" part so this one is painfully stupid. In the 1990s there were older queer folk who didn't even know bisexual is what they were. When Roddy McDowall was confronted by Vincent Price's daughter and asked "Why didn't you tell me my father was bisexual?" He said "We didn't know the word." In the 90s most bisexual people used the term to mean attraction despite gender. I'm fine with the use of the word "Pansexual" but it IS actually gatekeeping to tell older bisexuals that the word bisexual means "disincluding trans and nonbinary" and "attraction to the gender instead of despite the gender." I can't think of very many people who identify as bisexual who are okay with those added restrictions that they didn't agree to. For most of the older queer community bisexual means their own gender and everything else. That's the two for bi. I am certain there are some people today who don't mind the new restrictions added to the word bisexual and use it to self-identify but those that were identifying a bisexual in the 90s and early 2000s didn't have such restrictions because the options of pansexual and omnisexual were not in use yet. Pansexual was a term invented by Freud to mean "attraction to anything" (this included furniture). It's modern meaning of "consenting adults without consideration of gender" is relatively new and frustratingly this was originally how most of us were using the word bisexual. When you "Correct" someone who self-identifies as bisexual that they are actually pansexual because you want them to use the more modern language, THAT is gatekeeping. Ironically this just happened to me and when I corrected the person that was "correcting me" by explaining that older people who identify as bisexual tend to use it with the same meaning as the modern pansexual, I was suddenly accused of "Gatekeeping." So now, ironically, they're misusing the term gatekeeping while gatekeeping. Please stop doing this. The new terms are okay but don't tell us how we can use the older terms, especially when bisexual isn't that old of a term in the grand scheme of things. I sometimes use the term pansexual just to make things easier for the younger folk since they adapted to the restrictive version of the term bisexual we never asked for. Also I like its connection to mythology. But please don't "Correct" people for using the term they had for themselves since the 90s because they never added those new restrictions to it. This is rude. And that is the gatekeeping. Them telling you what the word meant decades ago is not "gatekeeping." You telling them how they have to us it now- that is gatekeeping. Sincerely, Most queer folk over the age of thirty.

[angstics]

i finally articulated my opinion on my "is gerard way doing drag" question. my definition of drag is when a person impersonates, exaggerates, or appropriates a mode of gender expression. drag can be artistic or political (or both). drag can be an identity. drag and transgender identity are confused as the same thing. for some, it is. what is considered cross dressing can also be considered drag. it's important to note that drag is essential to queer culture, and how the us government harasses queer people through cross dressing, and now anti-drag, laws. we wouldnt be here talking about pop artists doing drag without drag performers and nonbinary-trans-gnc people.

to some people, a self-identified man in a female-identified dress is drag. "cross dressing" depends on cishet norms. queer people, especially nonbinary-trans-gnc people, have called to dismantle the assignment of gender to clothing. under that lens, a man in a dress is just a man in a dress -- for it to be drag, context and intent matters. that's how you get women doing female drag, or androgynous people doing what gerard way's been doing this last year on tour.

in asking "is gerard way doing drag?", im assigning importance to the topic. does it matter? within my understanding, drag is about intent and context as much as gender presentation. intent and context is what makes something important. therefore: understanding why the question is important solves it.

male music artists have a long history of cross dressing and doing drag. there's a good chance plugging any dude into a search engine with "drag" or "skirt" will bring something up. bowie, queen, nirvana, manic street preachers, placebo. here's a list. newer artists: lil nas x, harry styles, anthony green, pete wentz, young thug. some are impersonating female caricatures, some are masculinizing female clothes (long, ill-fitting, straight). some, like molko and lil nas, wear feminine clothes without exaggerating or masculinizing. gerard is in that same grey area.

male music artists have a long history of cross dressing and doing drag -- photos: "i want to break free" mv by queen (1984) / placebo in london (oct 1998) / lil nas x at audacy beach festival (dec 5, 2021) / fall out boy at rock for people (june 17, 2022)

all that history is why it was so weird when kerrang called gerard's riot fest "dress and heels" "a compelling show of contrarian anti-rock star eccentricity". it is not anti-rock star, at least not as described. it may be compelling, contrarian, and eccentric, but no reviewer really cares to analyze why. the closest they get is by identifying non-binary connection (them.us) and its relation to the "minefield that is American gender politics today" (latimes.com).

fans were struck by way's outfits for a lot of other reasons.

1. we have to get it out of the way that they just looked hot -- gerard is perpetually attractive, skirts are pretty. easy equation.

2. he has a long history of gender nonconformity. more on that in my #mcr queer studies tag. gerard is a 45 year old famously androgynous person who doesnt do labels, aligns himself with gender nonconformity (2014 reddit ama, 2018 advocate article, 2015 he/they tweet), and doesnt seem to care to be known as a man.

3. the tour outfits were well-fitted. many were crafted by skilled designer marina toybina and her team. which leads to ->

4. the outfits were very casual and very feminine. as mentioned, most men opt for masculine, ill-fitting skirts. which is to say they are NOT showing leg and they are definitely not showing ass. gerard doesnt steer clear from shortness or tightness or movement. he also dresses in ways people dress day to day -- the miniskirt is as casual as the shorts as casual as the jeans. there's some discussion to be had about what casual means -- he could be imitating expected presentation or just using basics, like his frequent shirt and pants.

the miniskirt is as casual as the shorts as casual as the jeans -- photos: firefly music festival (sept 23, 2022) / uncasville (sept 1, 2022) / eden project night 1 (may 16, 2022)

5. there was variety. many outfits, many types. he wasnt just doing pure femininity. some looks were high concept, some low concept. some gendered, some genderless. some feminine, some masculine. it was playful. its honesty evident in its fluidity yet cohesiveness. expanded in the next points ->

6. they incorporate elements of masculinity and gender neutrality concurrent with the feminine. his aggressive, energetic performance style often doesnt mind what people are seeing when his skirt lifts or shirt droops. he has little to no make-up -- if he does, it's stage and not glam. the closest he gets is the agender black swan look at boston night 1, the stage contour at wwwy night 3, and dubious lipstick at firefly. he also maintains the same hairstyle: barely styled, not straightened-curled. pinned a few times, gelled back some other times.

he has little to no make-up -- if he does, it's stage and not glam -- photos: boston night 1 (sept 7, 2022) / when we were young night 3 (oct 29, 2022) / firefly music festival (sept 23, 2022)

7. the character outfits weren't caricatures, like green's sleazy hooker or queen's uptight housewives. gerard's characters were appropriated but not exaggerated. cheerleader, nurse, manson girl, jackie o, princess diane, st joan. all figures of pop culture. he wore them as they were. even comparing green and way's similar white-green cheerleader costumes there's a difference in presentation. green wears long leggings, way wears shorts. green's costume is based on a stranger things character, way's is a custom remade vintage outfit. green exhibits the masculinization of feminine clothes which way subverts. this comparison highlights what makes way's outfits different, and therefore exciting to talk about.

green exhibits the masculinization of feminine clothes which way subverts -- photos: saosin in garden grove, ca (oct 27, 2022) / mcr in nashville, tn (aug 23, 2022)

8. and when he played with masculinity, it was in a way that was dubbed "boydrag". the new jersey night 2 casino singer look was a dramatic caricature that heightened masculine features until they were pure style... the defintion of camp. he had a mustache -- thin like john waters or a confirmed bachelor, and drawn on with eyeliner. he had a suit -- a pink-gold, glittery woman's cut jacket with a glittery bowtie and pleated shirt. the dramatic flair is accentuated by the black eye make-up, the frank sinatra "my way" cover, the drum tag: "the house always wins".

the defintion of camp -- photos: new jersey night 2 (sept 21, 2022) 1 / 2

when i asked which outfits others considered drag, all replies identified the casino singer and jackie o as drag and the rest as "just clothes". this relation made me understand why the rest couldnt be drag despite all the connections i talked about above. the jackie o outfit doesnt exaggerate the source like casino singer, but the source itself is both highly dramatic and highly gendered. cheer is gendered but not highly dramatic, st joan dramatic but not highly gendered. diane is gendered and dramatic, but not highly. the list goes on and on. it's a fine line. especially cheer could tip into drag for me.

but the source itself is both highly dramatic and highly gendered -- photos: mcr at riot fest (oct 12, 2022) / jackie kennedy onassis (jan 3, 1971)

if drag is understood in this way, simply wearing gendered clothes isnt drag. the look itself has to be about the performance of gender, however that may be presented. that’s the importance of classification. we can see what the artist is doing.

[velvetvexations]

Venting but like. I know it's influenced by which circles I follow and such (I'm on this site, for example) but it feels like people just seem to associate gender varience with lesbianism. Like I see so little content of people who center femme gay men, or masculine women who aren't lesbians, etc. People constantly make jokes about like "sees what looks like two gay men but is actually two butches which is ontologically better" but never never anything like what if these two femme looking individuals were gay men. That and like the lack of community and language for feminine men just makes it harder for me to feel like I fit in where the options seem like cis gay overall gender conforming men on one side, people attracted to women of diverse genders and presentations and experiences on the other. People talk about events where they've felt seen as their gender and found other people with queer gender experiences and it's like yeah it was at the Dyke bar or something and I love that for them but where do I go someone who's gender is femme but also man and attracted to men cause the gay male community feels so distant and very cis and conforming, I don't feel a sense of belonging there but the alternative feels desperate to tie me back into womanhood or attraction to women. Butches and dyke's are fantastic but I wish I could find more queer rep of gender exploration that isn't tied to lesbians, personally. And I know it's largely because of the history of these groups and all that and the ways that lesbianism is treated and policed (how there's always arguments against bi lesbians but not bi gay men, trans man lesbians but people just flat out ignore trans women gay men(see the language deficit) etc. There's no equivalent to the butch community for gay men as far as I know, not to the same extent. There's not even commonly used terminology similar to butch or lesbian that gets across that kind of meaning without explicitly tieing in a binary gender(people try with things like Achillean, but that doesn't have the same recognition and often gets mocked instead)(easier to say "the term lesbian includes nonbinary people" than it is to say "the term gay man includes nonbinary people") so I've had to say gay men community even if I'm not entirely a man because there's no words for me) but I feel like I don't even know where to look to find people like me a lot of the time.

This is all just a very personal rant and probably not entirely indicative of wider reality but it helps me to express it to someone else, so I greatly appreciate you having your ask box open to listen <3

It's not things I have a good handle on, but I've heard very similar from others. You're not alone, anon!

[zenless-zideblog-zero]

ZZZ sexuality headcanons

Because everyone else seems to do it.

~Phaethon Sibs~

Wise: Biromantic (slight preference for women) Pansexual, but like Theater Kid Bi/Pan. He IS LGBT+, but he's so dramatic about it the only people he ends up falling in love with are those with big dramatic reveals and backstories (Lycaon, Caesar, ETC.)

Belle: Demi on both accounts. She finds herself falling for girls more often but to be fair, an inordinate amount of the people she's around are Girls.

She has some Trans Vibes™ to me, but also just as likely to be cis.

~The Cunning Hares~

Nicole: Likes Women, and Certain men. Aromantic, but willing to be in a romantic relationship.

Anby: Sex positive Asexual, Panromantic. She only recently figured this out since she escaped her mysterious past.

Billy: Okay, him being a Robot, even a sapient one, makes the whole Sexuality/Romanticism thing weird to consider, but given the fact he has some kind of attraction to Monica that seems to be deeper than an emotional infatuation, so like. Straight? But also I reserve the right to change this in the Future.

Nekomata: Okay, as a bisexual it's hard not to make everyone like both men and woman as a form of projection, but also. Shooting her with the Bisexual Beam™.

~Belobog Heavy industries~

Koleda: Pansexual Demiromantic.

Grace & Anton: I am putting these two together because I cannot begin to fathom what is going on inside these People's heads. Should either of them have a sexual and/or romantic partner, they won't care what their partner is, in a way that is impossible to distinguish between Bi/Pan/Omni/Etc and Asexuality.

Simultaneously, I can also see them both being DEEPLY Homosexual, OR in the vein of "HRT Hit me like Freight Train" trans, but not both gay and trans.

Ben: Either the straightest man ever or the least flamboyant gay man in history, because on one hand he's a Bear (Heavyset Hairy Man) and a Bear (Furry) but also he's the accountant, which means he likely was in Business classes in college. I have never met a gay person good at math.

~Victoria Housekeeping~

Lycaon: I think he is like, pan/Omni/etc, but he's so deeply uncomfortable with being open to those he doesn't know he seems like he's demi.

Rina: Again, as a bisexual it's hard not to make everyone like both men and woman as a form of projection. But also, *Bisexuality Beam*

Corin: She really hasn't put much thought into it, but to seem 'normal' her kneejerk reaction to such a question is to claim that she's straight, even though she's still very much figuring herself out.

Sapphic, with unclear feelings towards men.

Ellen: (BisexualProjection.TXT) Sapphic, but Demi with guys, sort of like how Nicole is described.

~Criminal Investigation Special Response Team~

Zhu-Yuan: Comfortably Pan, terribly single.

Qingyi: Same thing with Billy where it's different because she doesn't have "Organic" Impulses, but also she's lesbian.

Jane Doe: She's so deep into the "Flirty Femme Fatale" Persona that she's forgotten what her actual preferences are. When is the flirting real, and when is it a ploy? If it was real would it actually be for this Guy/Girl?

She lands somewhere between Lycaon and Corin's deals in this way. I don't Think it's that clear to her, let alone to anyone else. She just needs to be allowed to be honest with others to be true to herself, and figure it out again.

Seth: Sex-Neutral Ace, Panromantic. He WILL Cuddle you after and he WILL Make you breakfast in the morning.

~Sons of Calydon~

Caesar: Bi, heavily leaning towards men because that's mostly what she can find in her romance stories.

Lucy: (BisexualProjection.TXT) As a revolution against her dad, she went HARD into being a lesbian, but the freedom and kindness provided by the Sons have let her really consider her options. She does like women a LOT, but sometimes ... she wouldn't mind a guy treating her like the princess she wants to be.

BUT TO BE CLEAR. She is a Disaster Lesbian for Caesar specifically. Caesar is basically the pinnacle of Sexual Attraction to which she bases all other potential partners against. She does not realize this and it is part of the reason she fights Caesar so much because of the Weird Feelings™ She gets.

Burnice: Literal Flaming Homosexual. The MOST Lesbian. If the bad word for gay (F**) didn't already have the hitorical context for it's existence, Burnice would be the origin of it.

Piper: Also a lesbian. She had a wife ten years ago, but they've divorced. This cannot be surprising to anyone.

Lighter: GAY GAY HOMOSEXUAL GAY-

~Misc.~

Soukaku: A Child. Do not bother.

Soldier 11: A Good Soldier's only love is for their country, and their only marriage is to the code by which they live!

The amount of Psycho-sexual issues this Woman will have if she ever uncovers her own personhood will be Deep and Troubling. and HOT.

[maverick-werewolf]

Werewolf Fact #75 - Cynocephali (dog-headed men)

This month's folklore fact is a long-awaited one from over on the Patreon: the cynocephali or "dog-headed men."

Some depictions of cynocephali (the one above is from the Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493) are mistaken for werewolves fairly frequently; there are several differences of note, including but not limited to the fact that they are otherwise very, very human (normal hands and feet, no tail, etc) and that their ears are not always shaped like a wolf's/pointing directly upright. They often are, however, so don't take the ear shape as a surefire thing, either. When in doubt, make sure the depiction is actually meant to be showing a werewolf before using it for, I don't know, a royalty-free image in your werewolf publication (I've seen several). The cynocephali do not shapeshift, nor are they associated with wolves. They have nothing to do with werewolves. Yes, it was just a plot to make you click this link and read about cynocephali.

Cynocephali, or singular cynocephalus, is a term derived from the original Greek word "kynokephaloi," meaning "dog-headed." They have other names as well, which mean a range of things such as "dog-faced" and "half-dog." They were mentioned in assorted accounts and tales of travelers in Africa and India, appearing in sources as old as ancient Greece, and some similar beings can be found in other cultures, such as China. Likewise, depictions of and discussions of such beings continue into the Middle Ages. This same term was later used to refer to baboons, to which no-fun modern day scholars now attribute all cynocephali legends (although we do have at least one Ottoman depiction of a cynocephalus battling a monkey).

There are many quotes across various sources and time periods about these beings, including but not limited to this one from the fifth century BC Greek historian Herodotus, Histories 4. 191. 3 (trans. Godley) [source: Theoi]

"For the eastern region of Libya, which the Nomads inhabit, is low-lying and sandy as far as the Triton river; but the land west of this, where the farmers live, is exceedingly mountainous and wooded and full of wild beasts. In that country are the huge snakes and the lions, and the elephants and bears and asps, the horned asses, the Kunokephaloi (Cynocephali) (Dog-Headed) and the Headless Men that have their eyes in their chests, as the Libyans say, and the wild men and women, besides many other creatures not fabulous."

Some stories of the cynocephali are also frightfully specific as to how they live, rear livestock, grow fruit, weave baskets, wage war, and much more, even including details of their society, clothing, how long they live, etc. It's all quite interesting. If you'd like to read more specific quotations, you can find many on one of my favorite websites, Theoi.

Sources seem to dispute one another as to whether they bark, do not bark but only howl, only shriek, or whatever other sounds they may make, and there is also a range of descriptions including elements such as if they have beards and whether hair covers their bodies as well as the dog-head. Overall, probably the majority of sources say they wear the skins of animals as opposed to having fur, but there are those that also call them hairy all over.

Please note that I will not be covering/discussing any gods from ancient Egypt in this post, because despite what some modern day scholars like to discuss, I don't consider them "cynocephali." They were wolf-headed deities, not dog-headed (or even jackal-headed), and are overall only related to cynocephali legends by proxy and by modern scholars always putting everything into blasted categories for their next thesis. There were some dog-headed deities in ancient Egypt, and Anubis, Wepwawet, Duamutef, etc, were not among them, and even then, we can't really assert that the dog-headed deities among the ancient Egyptians are actually related to other legends and records of cynocephali.

With that out of the way, let's continue...

One of my personal favorite stories involving a dog-headed man is a version of the tale of Saint Christopher, though these depictions and this tale are not seen as canon by churches and has been proscribed in Eastern Orthodoxy (where such depictions were generally most common). Some of these depictions still survive, however. Some sources believe that Byzantine depictions of a dog-headed Christopher come from mistaking "Cananeus" (meaning "Canaanite") for "caninus," i.e. canine.

In the story about a dog-headed Saint Christopher, there lives Reprebrus (among other variations of his name; ultimately, they all essentially mean "reprobate"), who is captured by Romans in battle and made to serve among them. Reprebrus was said to be of "enormous size," with the head of a dog, said to be typical of his kind. He was later baptized and martyred. However, in another version (this one from Germany), Saint Christopher is depicted as a giant cynocephalus who ate human flesh and performed many atrocities. He meets the Christ child later and carries him across a river, as in tradition (the name Christopher means "bearer of Christ") and repents for his sinful behavior. He is baptized and becomes human, dedicating himself to serving Christianity and became a soldier saint.

There are far more fascinating details in the story than I relayed here in extreme simplicity, but that's a very simple view (the story is actually very specific about different regions and even the unit in which he served).

Other depictions of cynocephali exist in certain Christian traditions, with Ahrakas and Augani sometimes being depicted with dog heads in Coptic Christian tradition, in the life and legend of Saint Mercurius.

Bestiaries also got pretty wild with the creatures depicted therein, many of which were also mentioned in classical sources (such as the Herodotus quote earlier in this post). The image above is from between 1357 and 1371, in a work called The Voyage and Travels of Sir John Mandeville, or simply Mandeville's Travels, the memoirs of a man who traveled across the Middle East, India, and even as far as China. Medieval bestiaries also recorded all the same creatures shown here: a monopod or sciapod, a cyclops, a blemmy, and a cynocephalus, each different civilizations of beings said to dwell across the world (and often cited in multiple sources over considerable spans of time, which generally cite the same or similar regions for each civilization, which I've always found very interesting).

Mentions of the cynocephali span across centuries, such as in works by scribe Paul the Deacon, a Benedictine monk, and they are even mentioned in the Nowell Codex, a surviving Old English work containing Beowulf (as well as a work of the life of Saint Christopher and Wonders of the East, among others). They are also acknowledged in the works of multiple noteworthy explorers, including but not limited to Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, Ibn Battuta, and Piri Reis.

With that, I think that's a decent overview! Hope you enjoyed the post.

And stay tuned for news and updates on a major [werewolf/fantasy/adventure/horror/epic] book release later this year!

If you like my blog, be sure to follow me here and elsewhere for much more folklore and fiction, including books, especially on werewolves! You can also sign up for my free newsletter for monthly werewolf/vampire/folklore facts, a free story, book previews, and my other sundry projects and works, such as plushes.

Free Newsletter - maverickwerewolf.com (personal site + book shop + free fiction)  — Patreon — Wulfgard — Werewolf Fact Masterlist — X — Vampire Fact Masterlist — Amazon Author page

[kiefbowl]

What do you think of the Olympics boxing controversy

Very disappointed how fast "online radfems" jumped to quick conclusions with no evidence. Same thing happened to Caster Semenya. I appreciate how much feminists want female sport issues to be taken seriously, but it's clear there is a racial component to this. Many white feminists are incapable of avoiding weird race science b.s., incredibly disappointing. I think people are exposed more than ever in very casual ways to a lot of black political theories, and instead of trying to understand them and internalize them, are eager to leverage them for online clout and self-aggrandizing even if they completely misattribute them. That why you get weird takes like "black women have masculine features" because it's like a weird bastardization of black feminists who have discussed the ways culture will prescribe gendered cultural implications to black women at the detriment of black women. Black women are always, always women. They're female. They aren't a biologically different category, to believe so is both misogynistic and racist.

Additionally, I find it frustrating that so many feminists decide that intersex athletes are this huge priority. The anxiety over natural testosterone levels in otherwise biological female athletes veers on weird gender science of how women should be, what women should be, and other bio-essentialist views. All for a very tiny portion of the population who are already vulnerable and marginalized. The best faith argument is that in some sports, high testosterone in women may skew averages and create records that are near impossible to break, but given enough time outstanding performances become outliners, so I just don't see the big deal to have this much anxiety over intersex athletes. Doping, yes. Male, actual unambivalently male athletes invading female sports, yes. One singular born and raised female African athlete performing exceptionally, and well within the means of human performance? Good god there's a lot at risk here if we become insensitive, unnuanced, racist pieces of shit. Even from a pure optics point of view, if you disagree with me we certainly don't move the needle in favor to critical examine how trans gender ideas impact female athletes if it appears to everyone we really do believe "women = dainty, women are incapable, black women are men."

And since I always get the weirdest responses whenever I talk about this, please spare me you rote arguments because I've heard it before. I'm truly not moved by the argument that female intersex athletes tend to outperform in the sports they're in. I don't care. Good for them. I hope they make big bucks and live well for the rest of their lives. I don't need to know their medical history, I just don't care!! :)

[genderqueerdykes]

i think that certain parts of the community are starting to become more and more exclusionist. like im starting to see a lot more pro-lesboy spaces say "lesboy doesnt mean trans man/cis man! full men cant be lesboys!" or pro-mspec monospec spaces say "mspec monospec doesnt mean being both things for the same attraction! it means being mspec for sex/romance and monospec for the other!! no one is a romantic mspec AND monospec at the same time!" or just. Things like that.

i did not see this ask until now and am i glad you sent it

short answer: yes, agreed, it's petty queer infighting that doesn't need to be happening

so from what i've noticed is most of online queer discourse really at the end of the day is about what an individual person thinks that queer label isn't, and not what it is. people are very nihilistic right now, and really love to take everything in bad faith. we're seeing a rash of reactionary content in general where people take their knee jerk reaction as their stance on an entire complex concept that requires time to digest and process. like literally the most farfetched dogshit take you've ever seen because they just found out about a concept and bullshitted and answer.

certain people wanna think they're experts on queerness overnight because they just realized they're [xyz] or whatever other reason they want to be the expert on queerness. really what it is is people who want to tell other people what it is, but not listen. like it really just is people who want to say "this is how queerness works. shut up because i'm the only one who knows why. don't ask me for a reason". like it's about control. it's about people who have never done any research into queer history in any country on any continent, has not interacted with their local queer community who still want to have a captive audience about what queerness "really is". so instead of learning history and talking to other people they tell you how they feel and spin it as the truth.

other people just send the most bizarre angry posts, asks, DMs, whatever, about how they hate this 1 really specific kind of person that they've never actually met, but hypothetically they would hate. it's mind games. people get caught up in their own thoughts long enough to believe the hypothetical guy they made up isn't real. it's the strawman argument. i don't know what compels humans to do this but for whatever reason, people really love making up a fictional guy to get offended at. it's really bizarre. if cishet men wanted to identify as lesbians, they would literally already be doing it

if you know what logical fallacies are to some extend and have been around internet discussions in general for a long time, you start to recognize the patterns. it's a type of entitled attitude that leads a person to not be in a community for very long. it's a certain kind of person who gets a rise out of being a jackass. like i've tried to word that better. no. that's what it is. like people are aware of the fact that they're being a jackass and continue to do it anyway. people are getting a kick out of this. like. people are chasing the rush you get from fucking with someone. that's all it is. when people say "how can they be so cruel?" they're chasing a mental high that fades extremely quickly, so they have to keep doing it over, and over, and over.

it's like how do i put it. now that social media is so widespread, just about everyone has one on at least a few platforms at this point. people are being exposed to these conversations. and you're gonna have some complete noobs who come in thinking they can define lesbianism because they realized they were a lesbian yesterday and it's like. people will keep fighting the same tired old argument about how trans men can't be lesbians for the 9439030985th time and meanwhile they're ignoring the 50 trans male dykes interacting with one of their mutuals like i think it's literally dumb as hell that there are people on this website mentally abusing strangers on the internet because they refuse to crack open a book, read a zine or open a pdf and read the biographies of real world trans male lesbians, or even just read an article about one. like it's easier and more fun for them to pretend it's not happening it's wild as hell to me

anyway, yes. it's really stupid. people are getting caught up in all the wrong parts of what separates identities. it's the compulsion to draw lines in the sand that is forced upon us in our binary obsessed society. it is likely tied to black and white thinking, and catastrophizing, which both can happen when someone is stressed and looking at a situation in a maladaptive way, either due to perspective or neurotype. sometimes this legitimately can be due to someone's mental health, so it's not an excuse, but it's an explanation for why people get so riled up. those headspaces get you very heated and it's difficult to come down from. it requires a lot of time learning emotional coping skills to walk backwards from those types of episodes