#by essentially letting us be 'trans' OR 'men' when we are BOTH

[bisexualamy]

my project falls in between the cracks of different overlapping artistic areas (it's not a film it's audio, it's audio fiction not audio journalism) but it really is something else that i qualify for a lot more grants now catered to "gender minorities" bc the other half of my production staff is a cis(het) woman tbh it feels a bit like a slap in the face.

i am a trans person writing about other trans people yet i do not qualify for so many of these grants for gender minorities bc they're specifically for "women and nonbinary people". i am a trans person who does not qualify but so many cis women do.

talking about transmasc erasure is exhausting bc ironically ppl get so hung up on the man part of the trans man identity and i just want to shake people and say i'm trans i'm trans stop forgetting that i'm trans. my experiences with systemic gender discrimination are closer to women (trans & cis) and nb people than they'll ever be to cis men's

[littlesparklight]

What are the specific sources that say Helen went willingly with Paris? Was discussing with a friend but all I could remember was Sappho fragment 16? Ty!!

Let me start with a quote from the preface to Ruby Blondell's Helen of Troy: Beauty, Myth, Devastation:

"Though her [Helen's] departure is typically referred to as an "abduction", none of our sources claims that Paris took Helen by force against her will. Her complicity is essential to her story."

I could, in short, give you almost any and all sources possible, anon! Even the late sources like Dictys and Dares include mutual attraction and desire, even when Helen is, actually forcibly taken. And sure, some might protest about Aphrodite's (implied, usually) forcible meddling in Helen's psychology, but that is never what we really see and that is, secondly, not really how personal responsibility, even in the face of potential/actual divine interference, works. (In that case you'd have to absolve Zeus of a lot of his escapades.)

Anyway, I'll try to give you a selection, vaguely arranged in chronological order.

The Iliad - I could pick several different lines from here, and they'd all be from Helen herself. Sure, if one's interpretation is that she is not honest about what she's saying, you might not agree, but I'm going to insist on allowing Helen the agency she is claiming for herself. So, here, from Helen's conversation with Priam in Book 3:

"Honored are you to me, dear father in law, and revered, and would that evil death had pleased me at that time when I followed your son here, abandoning [...]" (trans. Caroline Alexander)

Elsewhere Helen uses "I went". But for this the pertinent thing is that "had pleased me" because the clear implication is that what pleased her back then was Paris, not death.

The Kypria; fragmentary, here's a quote from Proclus' summary: "Aphrodite brings Helen and Alexandros together. After their intercourse, they load up a great many valuables and sail away by night."

That "brings [them] together" isn't a language of force in the terminology used, and it's clearly both Helen and Paris who takes the valuables, not Paris alone. In fact, lets compare a directly comparable sentence from the (much) later Bibliotheke, Epitome 3.3: "Alexander persuaded Helen to go off with him. And she abandoned Hermione, then nine years old, and putting most of the property on board, she set sail with him by night."

'Persuasion', 'she abandoned', '[she] put most of the property on board', 'she set sail'. You see the point here. Helen is not baggage that Paris has picked up like an inanimate object and left with, no matter what its will. She is doing things.

You already mentioned Sappho 16 yourself, so let's turn to her contemporary Alkaios, fr. 283 (taking the translation of the quote of this from Blondell's book): "... and [Eros?] excited in her breast, the heart of Argive Helen; and driven mad by the Trojan man, the host-deceiver, she followed him over the sea in his ship."

The rest basically reiterates these opening lines, and you can see some of the similarity to Sappho 16, but Alkaios is a lot more condemnatory. Of Helen and Paris both.

Euripides next. Iphigenia in Aulis: "[...]and he, finding Menelaus gone from home, carried Helen off, in mutual desire, to his steading on Ida." (Agamemnon speaking.) and "[...]that Hellas might exact vengeance on the one who had fled her home to wed a foreigner." (The chorus speaking.) Trojan Women: "Their captain too, whom men call wise, has lost for what he hated most what most he prized, yielding to his brother for a woman's sake—and she was willing and not taken by force—the joy he had of his own children in his home." (Kassandra speaking.) I'm not going to quote all of Hecuba's speech in the agon against Helen, but her whole argument is that Helen went willingly... and some of Helen's own arguments are less to deny this idea of mutual desire/having left willingly and more to say Aphrodite is impossible to resist (but then we have to absolve Zeus, for Helen uses his vulnerability to Aphrodite as her thrust for as to why she should be excused).

Herodotus in his Histories is another that speak of abduction out of one side of the mouth and implies something far more willingly/mutual with the other (from 2.115):

"gave wings to and were gone with her"; the phrase really is that, quite literally, and I haven't been able to find anything that actually discusses this. (Another translations goes with "did stir her to desire" which, while that isn't what the text literally says, does, like, get the idea of something mutual happening/the usual focus on Helen's desire for Paris across to us better.)

And for something a little later, Gorgias' Encomium of Helen: like Blondell points out in her book, Gorgias' suggestion of actual force/violence as a potential factor in Helen leaving Sparta is quite singular. (In fact, all of his arguments turns into force/violence against Helen and make her basically an object who doesn't so much have no agency as no will or personhood that might react independently at all.)

And Ovid's Heroides certainly has Helen inviting Paris' attentions, even if she does so in a circuitous manner, circling up on saying "yes, come here, now that Menelaos has left".

Anyway, I could probably have gone on, but there's a couple sources, at least!

And I'd like to point out that whether one wants to insist that Aphrodite's potential direct influence means any "willingness" of Helen's is meaningless or not, there's a whole galaxy between "Helen went off with literally no thought to what this would cause or to her daughter and Menelaos and her family, and didn't care about the consequences/intentionally meant to cause all this destruction to both sides" and "she cares about this, and is/will be conflicted over it, yet is also attracted to and leaves with Paris".

Like, just because she wasn't violently kidnapped against her will, and was/is actually attracted to Paris (which she is still in the Iliad! That is part of the point of her confrontation with Aphrodite!) and so on, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of nuances (as the Iliad itself shows) that can be put into Helen being attracted to Paris and leaving willingly in some manner.

[dykeulous]

"I hold power over you in some ways and you hold power over me in some ways" sounds agreeable between people on the same level of the social hierarchy, but what power do any trans women - non-passing trans women especially - hold over cis women? I can't understand the disconnect between continuing to treat us like we have any of that structural power, or like we're still too dangerous to change clothes next to, without asserting we're essentially men benefiting from the patriarchy exactly as men do. You seem to acknowledge that sometimes people can be mean to us, but you must surely recognize the depth of pain and disempowerment that all trans people are subjected to. I truly understand that cis women do suffer greatly. But when statistics show that trans women are so much more likely to be raped and murdered, does that not show us to be uniquely weak compared to cis women, and more or less equal to trans men? I don't like ranking oppression either, but like, I just can't fathom how I could be the more socially favored next to a cis woman.

trans women face a very unique form of oppression, doubly so if also oppressed on other axes (race, class, ability, etc.), and they have challenges & struggles that cis women do not have to deal with. however, the reverse is also true. trans women, especially black trans women, are at high risks of prostitution, rape, economic abuse & homelessness, but using this statistic to declare that trans women are somehow more oppressed, or that their oppression somehow matters more than female-specific misogyny, is insensitive to the core. female socialization teaches & indoctrinates female people (so, both cis women & transmascs) into being meek & quiet, and so many rape & abuse cases go unreported because of this & many other factors– oftentimes, cis women are raped by their family members & relatives, which can also make things harder for speaking out about the abuse. male people will have to listen to us when we speak of this, and even trans women will have to step up & listen this time. you are not exempt from criticism, and if we can listen to your insights & experiences, you can do the same for us, even out of basic human respect & courtesy, if not out of genuine interest for learning.

trans women do have legitimate power over cis women (& i’m not saying this as a blank statement), even more so if the trans woman is non-passing, actually. oppression is not based on identity, and while i understand that a non-passing trans woman has an inner battle she has to deal with that cis women generally do not, as well as that she still faces unique struggles cis women do not– claiming that she’s somehow “more oppressed” & wields no systemic power over a cis woman whatsoever is just nebulous. we must take in & analyze all of our differing life experiences, and not jump to attack at the mere acknowledgment of male privilege and sex-based oppression. a non-passing trans woman isn’t being hatecrimed nor oppressed if a cis woman feels uncomfortable & unsafe in her presence, especially in female-only spaces. this is another way trans women can have more power over cis women; they treat female-only spaces as validation, while cis women are basically trapped in those spaces– either out of safety, fear, or sexism (as there definitely are female-only spaces that women are pushed/forced into). a large reason as to why female-only spaces even exist in the first place is because of sexism, and we cannot solve that by absolving female-only spaces & letting everyone in based on identity (which would just result in allowing cis men in anyway, and ultimately stop considering identity at all) while still not absolving misogyny.

we cannot get rid of female-only spaces before getting rid of misogyny. cis women being afraid of non-passing trans women isn’t cis women being secretly bigoted, it’s them being rightfully afraid of male people; and if you truly want to prove that you’re safe, you will have to not only identify as a woman, but also with women. anyone with a fully functional penis has the ability to harm a cis woman via exploiting this specific organ (obviously not only cis women– but also transmascs, transfems & cis men, i’m not trying to imply that only cis women or female people face sexual assault, i’m only going with this since i’m answering to this particular ask– but then again, cis women & female people are the only ones capable of being impregnated, so add on another fear & female-specific oppression). i’m not trying to say that male people are evil or that penises are evil or radioactive or whatever– penises aren’t made to do evil, and people with penises aren’t evil for having penises; those who do harm with them are evil, and cis women (or anyone really) aren’t being bigoted when they point out their valid & justified fear of penises. this doesn’t serve to fearmonger about trans women, and i absolutely understand that there are genuinely transphobic cis women out there who use this to try & further the falsified & transphobic belief how trans women are somehow more dangerous than cis men, or how trans women are predatory sexual abusers. the existence of such cis women, however, doesn’t negate the reality that cis women do have the right to be scared of the male population, and the reality that trans women do have & yield systemic privilege & power over cis women.

trans women can have power over cis women based on the types of female-specific oppression cis women face, that trans women do not; such as religious misogyny (trans women do face religious transphobia), medical misogyny (trans women do face medical transphobia & medical transmisogyny) & cultural misogyny. non-passing trans women don’t face social misogyny, neither, while still however being able of facing economic transmisogyny/economic homophobia & transphobia. trans women, passing or not, never had to experience the [childhood] trauma of female puberty (so, not talking about hormone reassignment therapy here), period stigma, and fear that comes with growing up with a female body/being told “you’re growing up now! you’re no longer a girl you’re a woman now!”, etc. i understand the agony of feeling like you’re trapped in the wrong body, of being severely dysphoric & in pain, as i’m trans myself, and i believe that trans women here can offer a perspective of their own specific childhood trauma connected with puberty– however this shouldn’t be done in a way that will disconnect & discourage cis women & female people from talking about their own experiences. we cannot all relate to each other all of the time. sometimes we just have to sit down and listen.

male privilege is real, and while not all trans women have it (and those who do have it in varying forms, sizes & levels), they still shouldn’t feel attacked when the topic of male socialization/male privilege/systemic power is brought up. i’ll go back to my original statement– i hold power over you in some ways, and you hold power over me in some ways. this makes sense when applied to trans women & cis women, as well.

[thealogie]

why does the "left" immediately equal marginalized voters in your message. it's not all trans immigrants of color, some are in fact privileged white people just hating on dems. but also if these "marginalized" voters don't see how trump is worse for them they should absolutely be blamed the same as anyone else responsible for this mess. it's one thing if they couldn't vote because of various voter suppression tactics, but if they just sat down and went "nope, not voting for a dem because they are not leftist enough for what i want my ideal candidate to be", they are complicit in making actual marginalized people (both in the US and worldwide) suffer the consequences of this government. as much as dems should finally learn their lesson and change their strategy, i fail to see what's realistically possible at this point, since americans keep ushering MAGA in and populating all branches of government with radicalized conservatives who then let billionaires have free reign with essentially russian style propaganda and brainwashing. it's insane how much this can all be traced back, among other things such as terrible racist sexist republicans, to bernie bros having a hissy fit and not voting dem in 2016, and while admittedly the democrats haven't learned much since then, neither in fact have the leftists, and the only people winning are the far right and governments hostile towards the US. dictatorship is now a realistic future, and it's not just because of racist white women or far right young men as you keep saying, it's *also* because of leftists, and it should very much be a conversation. dems can run on the most leftist campaign possible and then in practice it will all be blocked to hell because of SCOTUS or republican senate or whatever, and the only possible path is voting dems in ALWAYS no matter what, and then pressuring them once they are in office, and then not turning on them and then actually electing them again so it's just majority dems everywhere and shit can actually get passed for a change. if there were just a few election cycles of everyone left of center voting for dems, this could all still be fixed. mild republicans will keep sitting things out because they don't actually believe in democrats (until they actually see things working), so it should be on leftists, as dem policies are closer to what they want anyway. but it's the principle of things, right, dems are not leftist enough, and leftists shouldn't vote for them until they change, huh. you did the right thing but many people who essentially share your views didn't, and everyone suffers, but you still won't judge their actions as harshly as they should be judged and keep saying it's just on the party alone. imo dems' main responsibility right now should be countering disinfo better to stop right wing pivots, but sticking with their party is the responsibility of voters themselves and for now leftists should accept their party is the democratic party (only until we leave this timeline of "far right and even more far right" so that actual leftist reforms become possible again)

I was saying “don’t blame marginalized people” because the only evidence we have of an organized effort from the left to sit out the vote is from Arab Americans who object to the Democratic Party slaughtering their loved ones!

But beyond that - this is fine. You blame leftists for sitting out. You are free to do that. I don’t feel the same as you and the fact that I don’t feel the same will not change anything because feelings do not change anything. When it comes to action, operating from a place of “you should fall in line behind the party that’s closest to you” does not and will not persuade anyone. So I focus on a sentiment that’s “we should continue to vote in people who have some interest in creating a different kind of party and stop blaming voters for their own failure to create enthusiasm”

[genderkoolaid]

It's honestly really validating to read your thoughts on butch identity. I kept myself from fully accepting I might be a gay trans man for a long time because being a butch woman was so integral to my identity (I wept after finishing Stone Butch Blues. It was like being seen for the first time) and I hated that it felt like there was no way I could be both. So I was sort of performing trans man comphet and trying to convince myself I liked women just so I wouldn't lose that word. There's so much gender nuance to being butch that I feel like gets lost when we only focus on the sexuality aspect of it.

"There's so much gender nuance to being butch that I feel like gets lost when we only focus on the sexuality aspect of it." Yes!!!!!!

I came out very young (elementary school) as a lesbian, and cut my long hair to a pixie in the same year. And then shortly after began realizing was I was trans as well. I spent essentially my entire life being visibly queer and visibly queer-masculine a lot of the time. And this affected so much, because I latched onto "butch" extremely young and that became my model for my gender. I never shaved largely because, due to reading about butches, I felt that it was part of my path, even though I also knew it distanced me from others. My sense of masculinity and masculine fashion has always been deeply butch, regardless of my gender. Its such a deep and integral part of me and has been my whole life. I truly feel that I can't not be butch. I don't relate to a lot of "female socialization" both due to being autistic and being visibly queer; I always knew that, while being categorized as "girl," I was also never going to be a "real girl," and everyone knew that. Becoming a butch adult felt more natural than puberty.

Which is why its so annoying that people center butchness on sexuality, and specifically romantic-sexual attraction to femmes!!!! Because while I have, in fact, dated femmes (arguably I dated too many cis femme women who I felt I had to walk on ice around to avoid scaring them with my butch gender), like I said, my butchness is a natural part of me. Being queer is a part of being butch, but the way we talk about butchness makes me feel like people can only view it existing in relation to romance (and femmes). And obviously because of radfeminism, trans men & mascs' unique relationships with butchness have been largely ignored in any way besides "I used to be butch, but now I'm a Normal Straight Man!" & also the general erasure of transmasculinity in lesbian history. Lesbian spaces have always been a haven for trans people, because for a long time in the West, your options were generally "move to a new town and go completely stealth for as long as possible" or "find your local lesbians and be a dyke within a community." There's a reason "butch" has always held so much gender nuance. Radclyffe Hall, who wrote the famous lesbian book The Well of Loneliness, has been argued to have been transmasculine- but the idea that butches may truly call into question the gender binary causes too much anxiety, so we have to constantly re-affirm that butches are above all else women. I'm a firm believer that butch4butch relationships have long been a way for gay trans men to indulge their desire for men within the context of lesbian identity (because all the trans guys are fucking each other and always have been).

Anyways. yeah. let butches exist beyond our sexuality. Understand that "butch" carries so much color and cannot be reduced down to a simple binary concept.

(Also anon, if you haven't, you should read this article about transmasculine comphet wrt gayness).

[tunnaa-unnaa]

im kind of uniformed about trans issues but saw your reblog about valentine. im genuinely not trying to argue i just want to understand, isnt sex segregation in sports in order to achieve fairness and give female people a chance to succeed? why should valentine be allowed? if im understanding correctly she is amab? sorry if im wording this question incorrectly, im genuinely just not informed and am only finding extremely opinionated people who mis-pronoun when i google her, genuinely just want to understand why people are in favor of her racing with female people

First of all, thanks for reaching out and being curious! I'm probably not the best at answering this since it's not my post and I'm just a random reblogger, but I'll try my best to give some links to better sources.

Sex segregation isn't actually necessary in sports. You might be familiar with how in wrestling or other combat sports, participants are divided into classes depending on body weight. More body mass, more muscle. Wouldn't be fair putting a 80kg guy against a 130kg guy, makes sense. Which brings us to the question: Why aren't sports segregated by categories like that - categories that provably, measurably make a difference in the sport at hand? Why do we segregate them by sex, somehow implying that a 130kg woman wrestler would be at a disadvantage against that 80kg man from earlier? Or a 130kg man for that matter?

Here is an article going deeper into this topic: The Problem with Sex Segregated Sport Here's another: Separating Sports by Sex Doesn’t Make Sense

It's easy to think women are inherently weaker than men, because that's what we keep getting told over and over, but both chromosomal sex and the biology around it are far more complex than that. It's a lot more nurture than nature the more research gets done.

Which brings us to trans people. If neither sex is inherently stronger, why gatekeep trans athletes from competing against people of the same gender?

Here's a systematic review examining how the restrictions placed on trans people in sports lack evidence to back them up, as we do not have any proof that being trans gives any kind of advantage: Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies

Another issue with gatekeeping trans people from sports is that it adds onto and reinforces other cultural biases and exclusion of transgender people. It's more important to let people with all kinds of bodies participate, than to exclude some entirely in the name of fairness. Sports are all about measuring biological advantages between individuals. So it highlights a very specific kind of bigotry when the imagined advantage trans people supposedly have is seen as a problem even when there's no evidence of such.

Here's another post I've reblogged that points out how this obsession with biological essentialism - thinking that women inherently perform differently in sports than men - is also hurting intersex people. People whose bodies do not fall into either binary category should also be allowed to compete without intrusive examinations. We should categorize sports based on performance and ability, not sex.

That's the basic gist of things. Thanks again for being interested in the topic! Others are free to add to this post or correct me.

(terfs DNI)

[self-loving-vampire]

The best at abolishing gender

TERFs: We want to abolish gender and let people be GNC.

Also TERFs: We must gender absolutely everything so that we can find more excuses to "clock" and misgender trans women and refer to the exact same behaviors we exhibit all the time as essentially 'male'.

Also TERFs: It is bad to use more precise and gender-neutral language when speaking about women. Calling women "people" is dehumanizing erasure!

Also TERFs: Furthermore when trans people reduce womanhood to self-identification they completely erase the meaning of it, which I consider bad despite ostensibly wanting to abolish gender.

Also TERFs: Also I spend most of my one life on earth calling trans women slurs and getting really mad at dubious outrage bait stories about them, especially when they don't meet traditional feminine beauty standards. Sometimes I even accidentally assume cis women who are too confident or athletic are trans but don't mind that.

Also TERFs: By the way I also want to ban people from modifying their bodies across lines that are considered gendered and think that when people want to do that kind of thing (or even just crossdress) it's a sign of either pitiful manipulation by a suspiciously Jewish conspiracy or the result of sexual perversion.

Also TERFs: At a minimum I support more medical gatekeeping for trans people (which traditionally involves demands for extreme gender conformity) and "therapy" to make people stop being trans (which also often involves demands for gender conformity and draws from existing homophobic conversion therapy which does the same, because for the longest time conservatives thought gay people and trans people were basically the same thing).

Also TERFs: On that note I already think men are violent slavering beasts as part of their unchanging essential nature but I especially think men who don't conform to gender norms are especially threatening and predatory.

Also TERFs: I am hearbroken when my child (a trans man) won't shave and I need to resort to bribes, threats, and isolation to make my children comply with gender norms.

Also TERFs: So what if I work with the religious conservatives and neo-nazis? Just because we are politically aligned and working towards taking away other people's rights doesn't mean I agree with them on everything so it's fine and does not merit further reflection on whether or not I am a complete tool.

Also TERFs: I feel offended when a trans person has both a skirt and facial hair on at the same time. I need to mock that whenever I see it.

And so on...

[disaster-cryptid]

I just saw a dumbass take that was along the lines of "we shoulda never let trans women think they're the most oppressed" like I'm sorry but was it 100% fucking legal to murder you based on your gender identity in a majority of US states within the past fucking decade? No? Did you know that trans women were often the victims of LGBTQ panic laws meaning people who murdered trans women because they were trans were allowed to walk free and it was seen as just? No? Then shut the fuck up as you clearly don't know enough about the society you find yourself in, plus even just with a basic understanding of intersectionality (one of the more fundamental aspects to feminist critique of society) shows how trans women are negatively affected under more negative circumstances than other gender identities.

It kinda goes like this, let's go one harmful aspect of society at a time:

- Patriarchy: the lie that men are superior to women in every way and should be subservient to men

Who are the ones generally most harmed in a society ingrained in patriarchy? Women.

- Transphobia/Gender essentialism: the lie that you should fit the arbitrarily defined roles for the gender assigned to you at birth and that these roles are immutable and those who deviate should be punished

Who are the ones generally most harmed in a society ingrained in Transphobia? Trans people.

So when you're in a society ingrained in both transphobia and patriarchy what gender identity is gonna be the most harmed?

Trans Women!

Tada some the most bare bones feminist critique out there but most people seem comfortable in the new pop feminism of conservatism but there's a girl on the podium *round of applause*

And obviously if you add other intersections in the intersectional theory it gets more nuanced and more complicated they way those affected are harmed like, if you add race in the mix, Black trans women are the most likely to be harmed. {In fact the most likely people to be murdered in cold blood for existing while transfem are Black trans people}

Add in Ableism? Black disabled trans women. And so on

Does this mean in every single case out there every trans woman has been abused by the society and people around her more than a cis woman? No but generally the society is set up to harm trans women more hence why most of us are socially abused, broke or murdered and asking for that to be recognized shouldn't be too fucking crazy if you actually care to examine and critique society with any sense of reality.

[angelic-writer]

Can we get some more lore on Joseph and Mary Davies? Like, if they got their habits from their own parents, what they do for a living, how they met, why they married (if it's not too much ofc)

Sure thing!

So Mary and Joseph weren't always bigots. It was a learned behavior from their parents and grandparents. Considering that they were from a different time period and they were their parents, Mary and Joseph thought that being gay and trans and stuff was abnormal and sinful. Before they became hateful, they were just curious about how the world worked. Of course, with them being Christian, they use Leviticus as an excuse for why they spread their hate.

Mary used to work as a businesswoman before she met Joseph while he worked as an assistant photographer. They both met while she was on a business trip in Birmingham. They just happened to bump into each other while Joseph was taking some nature shots. The two of them hit it off very well and eventually began dating. Soon, they settled on a small, cozy home in Crestwood and eventually, they got married.

Shortly after they married, the business that Mary worked at had a mass exodus of workers being let go, meaning she was essentially without a job. She tried applying for a couple more jobs, but they didn't take her in. Joseph still had his photography job, meaning he has become the sole breadwinner of the family, although the pay was pretty low. They've essentially fallen into a bit of financial debt and their marriage became strained as a result. Mary, eventually, got a part time job at Crestwood Baptist Church, but the pay wasn't enough.

When they had Micah, they wanted him to be successful in life and not fall into the same situation as them. Joseph took him out bird watching and tried to get him into photography, but he had no interest. They pushed him into more "manly" activities, even saying that getting a wife would help him in the future.

But there was one thing that Mary kept from the entire family. You see, because they were low on money, she had taken to hooking up with men to get extra money so they can stay afloat. She didn't dare speak about this to her husband. If he found out, it would be the end of their marriage. Julius found out while following her around and took photos of the multiple people she hooked up with. When Micah got kicked out of the family and then tried to take his own life, Julius decided to release the photos. That lead to everyone in town shunning her, calling her "Mary the Whore". (Get it? Cause Virgin Mary?)

Joseph was beside himself with rage. How could his own wife do this to him? How could she betray the family they had worked so hard for just to earn some "dirty money"? With Julius' influence, he decided to take matters into his own hands.

That night, Mary and Joseph both died. The police declared this as a murder-suicide. Overall, it's just a sad story of people who became assholes that met their end due to a creature beyond their human comprehension breaking Joseph's mind.

[drbased]

'The Collective Giving Up' of Feminism

Part 1.

I've heard of radfems complain that feminism is 'couple's therapy for straight women' and in the middle of a huge rant last night a lot of things clicked into place for me: we're currently in the middle of a mass exodus from feminism. The hope of the first wave may have been primarily political, but from the second-wave onwards the focus has been on the personal, the psychological, the emotional. The desire to improve society, or improve men, has had an undercurrent of 'if we can do this, then men and women can finally live together in harmony. We just have to hope that men are merely ignorant of our suffering, and once they are made Aware, once they realise that recognition of women's humanity will not crumble society they will begrudgingly pick up the mop and bucket, a small smile forming on their faces.'

But as time has gone on, as women have gained even more rights and freedom, men have responded with increasing levels of ridiculousness. Not only that, but average man seems to be crummier than ever; he doesn't keep himself well-groomed, he's not skilled in the art of a trade, he can't do DIY, he doesn't want to court you with fine dining and lavish gifts - he expects your relationship to be 'equal' without doing an equal share of the work. You're still a hyper-feminine angel, he's more basic than ever. The romance books of stoic hunky protectors were all a blatant lie.

After this most recent wave of male backlash (gamergate, trumpism), the response has been by the majority of women to simply... give up on feminism entirely. We will never re-habilitate men, so what's the point in all of it?

So, let's go through the different responses of the 'Collective Giving Up':

Mainstream Feminism: Mainstream feminism has effectively re-branded. Now, its primary goal is not real feminist action, but a last sliver of hope that if we de-fang feminism enough, then men might calm down. But this is not for any long-term strategy; it's the equivalent of a woman talking softly and backing down when her abusive husband has a tantrum. Its other, more insidious goal has been to 're-educate' women who wish to use feminism as a liberation tool - a way of soothing angry women by ensuring them that they don't have to do anything or care about women (including themselves) to be feminist - and that's the most feminist thing of all! Especially because it means you get to keep buying things - isn't capitalism great!? But most importantly, mainstream feminist women are incredibly embarrassed and scared of their chosen position; feminism has been put on a spotlight for the past decade, and with men constantly laughing at sexist air conditioners and mansplaining, these scared women, with no social structures to turn to to ensure them that their criticisms are right, have been put on the back foot. Made incredibly insecure and fearful for the few freedoms we have, feminists have back-pedalled.

Trans-activism: Trans-activism has been the final nail in the coffin, a perfect excuse to backpedal without having to deal with cognitive dissonence; if 'gender' is the problem, then you never have to have that stupid air-conditioner argument ever again. phew.

BDSM acceptance: I've said before about what BDSM offers women, and I will try my best to sum it up here. BDSM offers the following to women: 1. recontextualisation of rape and abuse under a symbolic framework, where a new narrative can be reconstructed that it's mutually enjoyed and a demonstration of man's natural, animalistic desire; 2. a simplicity whereby the woman never has to worry if she wanted sex, or wanted to orgasm, or is even attracted to her partner, because she essentially exists in a storybook setting where both partners play pre-destined roles; 3. a situation where the man seems to be willing to reciprocate sexually the way she's always wanted him to - he will dress well, curate an atmosphere, show her full-blooded sexual desire, focus on her orgasm, buy her toys, surprise her etc.; 4. In the case of female domination/pegging, it means she finally gets a semblance of equality through supposed 'role-reversal' and she gets to feel safe from sexual violence whilst never questioning why penetration and submissiveness seem to be inexoriably linked. In other words, BDSM allows an illusion of mutuality, allowing women to believe that male sexual violence was never a problem all along, and if they just roll with it, then all will be well.

Porn/'sex work' acceptance: I originally put this together with BDSM acceptance, because both of them posit the same fundamental idea: that male sexual violence was never a problem all along, and that if women just roll with it, then all will be well. Porn/'sex work' in particular have a particular nasty undertone because they fit neatly into the madonna/whore framework. Modern feminism, dripping with postmodernism, wants to believe that 1. we can successfully remove the stigma and connotations from certain things and 2. that doing so fixes the problem of those things. Supporting porn and 'sex work' allows the typically more privilged feminist to pay lipservice to breaking down the madonna/whore framework whilst simultaneously indulging in it, safe in the knowledge that she's the one who's not participating in those professions and experiencing the horrors that come with them. To really illustrate the point, the fact that viewing porn is considered to not 'count' as cheating, demonstrates the essential dehumanisation of the people involved. But ultimately, all this is window-dressing for the real reason porn has been accepted: men have not only continued to watch porn but they have escalated it - so if you want to secure your chance at a relationship, you have to give up on feminism.

Femininity acceptance: this one is also pretty obvious, but I also want to draw attention to the fact that whilst femininity rituals have gone up, male grooming has gone down. Men don't wear suits regularly in public anymore. There has been a recent growth in some men participating in certain appearance-based self-harming such as cosmetic surgery, but overall the scales couldn't be any more tipped. In many ways this is part of the collective apology - the extra energy put in by the abused women to prove that she was never in any danger of leaving him.

[thehumanexperience8b]

March 11th, 2024: Different Perspectives

We have something inside us that makes us stubborn about hearing other people’s opinions especially if we’re headstrong about our own. People do not want to be wrong. I fall victim to this sometimes, but I try to catch myself, put aside my preconceived opinions about things and learn from first hand experience. As of late, I came across a video on YouTube from a man I recognized, but I couldn’t place the name. When I looked in the description, I realized this was one of those infamous raw meat diet men that claimed vegetables are toxic. I don’t really know about that, although I’d love to see where that came from!! But I didn’t come to watch this video he posted about the carnivore diet, I came to see what secret ingredients in McDonald's food I didn’t know about! When I watched the video everything he talked about was simple, and a lot of things I already knew, facts about seed oils, trans fats, chemicals, all the things that make fast food so appetizing to some, but disgusting to others. At the end of the day, the video was still valuable despite his history of some odd claims about plants. Society has a big problem right now about learning something about a person or thing and making judgements about someone. Although I don’t like using the term “humble,” though sometimes we do need to take a step back and humble ourselves. We’re all human, and we jump to conclusions about a lot of things. But having understanding and trust is an essential building block for a happy life. There’s no problem with having strong beliefs, but make sure you’re making informed choices and using critical thinking skills before shaming someone else. We see this many times over and over again in today’s political climate. Because of the two party system, once you pick one side you automatically have a cognitive bias against the other. What’s interesting is that both major parties have a lot more in common than they’d like to admit. But this entry isn’t about politics. So what can you do to have a better understanding of someone, or things in general? Well, if it’s a person you can obviously spend some more time around them, learn what they really think, how they act, what kind of energy they emit. For certain topics, and this is a great skill for understanding people, is that you need to believe most people are working “for the light.” They all think they’re making reasonable choices that will do something good in the long run. I’ve never actually met someone who’s unreasonable, or irrational. To be irrational is to lack substance or thought, but isn’t the labeling of someone as “irrational” just as thought-less? Maybe this person is being counter-intuitive or very against your own beliefs but that doesn’t mean they are without reason in some way. I pity the person who cannot see that their “rational” is seen just as irrational to the other. These types of people are one in the same. So come forth!!!! Please let the world see that we’re all trying our best to do what is right in our eyes. Now if we all understand each other, and if we hear each criticism from each other and share our thoughts, we can evolve to create a super-idea that could be fool-proof in really changing the course of humanity!!! True understanding is the next step!

“There's a light we share between us, when your Heart's an open door. When we care for one another. We won't have to look for Heaven anymore.” -Heaven. The Orion Experience

[heartshapedcreaturefromcriptoon]

I couldn't find the post I was going to reblog this to again, but like...

I will continue to maintain my stance that this fandoms "discourse" is always going to be just people complaining about Star vs. The Forces of Evil all over again even when some were annoyed over the Star vs.' whiners but can't realize that they're behaving exactly like how Star vs. fantis did because now all that same whining and complaining has been repackaged for "Adults".

Like: " I don't CARE that this show has both on and off screen queer rep and at least two visible wheelchair users! Why can't I a 20 year old cartoon watcher, fuck these lizard men and while we're at it, why can't this monster fucker just fuck the hot woobie human husband I made for her instead and why can't this human Princess be her daughter instead of this pedo coded ugly monster Princess and why can't the hot lizard I want to fuck just be the Queen Monster's Fuckers son INSTEAD of the ugly Monster Princess even though I also want him to be Queen Monster Fuckers Husband too somehow and most importantly, why can't I, A 20something cartoon watcher just SEE my entire sexual identity be represented by hopefully our first ever transgender DISNEY PRINCESS NAMED 'TURD'?! It's BAD WRITING! This Adult Teacher character is a PEDOPHILE for touching my transgender child named TURD inappropriately even though she's an older villain character who is actually the lost ugly monster princess who we don't care about because she replaced the lizard prince I want to fuck and be both her brother and her dad at the same time apparently AND she destroyed this idea of a hot sexy human family I had in my head canon and she'll be turned into a goddamn baby and and be best friends with this character I only head canon as trans baby sister but right now she's just a filthy old pedo who is touching my poor transgender representation named named PRINCESS TURD inappropriately and I don't understand why Disney even ALLOWED this FILTH on the air or why Nefcy and the Star Crew would ever be allowed to write an AUTHORITY FIGURE let alone a TEACHER touching a transgender-coded child named TURD like this but I've just been SO PERSONALLY VIOLATED as a 20something after seeing a cartoon owned by Disney essentially just reference the gender reveal in 'Mulan' that I'm going to drop the show and possibly kms! ;( "

Now it's the Sallie May thing for Helluva and next thing you know for Hazbin it will be: "Why is my ever so precious asexual serial killer representation acting so sensual and romantic about killing and eating people shouldn't that just be reserved for The Whore??? As a (hopefully) 20something Aro/Ace I feel Vivzie personally violated us! And why are all their backstories like that?! Who ever should be allowed to WRITE THAT?! I'm going to drop the show and possibly kms! ;( "





[euphoricfilter]

“cis asian man”

so by arguing that jungkook can’t be genderfluid or enby, last anon has basically stepped into muddy waters of implying that nonbinary is only a gender that people born female can identify as —or really only exist as

they’ve assigned a binary to where none should apply

like we do know that people can be nonbinary and present masc? right?

now im a black enby and i’ve faced the masculinization of black women which is essentially on the opposite spectrum of the emasculation of asian men.

there is something to be said about the emasculation of asian men but when it actually applies.

we can talk about asian men who are feminized and we can talk about how there are some asian amab enbies who are secure in their masculinity and feel disrespected when people emasculate them.

but that’s not what anon is proposing cuz they want jungkook to be cis in this story.

seeing the nonbinary identity as asian emasculation tells me that anon sees it as feminization instead of neutrality. you’ve essentially let yt supremacy get a hold of you, boo boo🤦🏽‍♀️

i won’t lie and say there isn’t a problem within the nonbinary community where many afab enbies fall into the trap of reaffirming the binary by subconsciously —or even maliciously— making say/doing things that only “women/afab” people can relate to only to label it as nonbinary discourse.

i’ve heard people born male/socialized male feel out of place in enby spaces because the tendency of thinking “afab = nonbinary”. this isnt true and should be shut down immediately.

anon is sounding like a radfem/terf who only accepts female/feminine enby in women’s spaces because amab enbies are still “men”

not all of us look like manic pixie dream girls who like frogs. cuz i promise you when you ask the average conservative or even liberal what a nonbinary person looks like its this very specific stereotype of “short haired white ‘woman’ who likes quirky things and dresses in cuffed mom jeans and a graphic tee with pride pins”

its not to say that these people are any less valid in the nonbinary identity than me but it doesn’t reflect the diversity of our identity gender or race wise.

plus its the fact that anon is okay with reader being nonbinary which i assume means that they think they’ll be reading as someone with a vagina.

and even if they recognize that the “holes” may bot be specified. they will probably delve into their own subconscious bias of imagining nonbinary reader with vagina cuz they already think “afab = nonbinary”

but their lil fantasy falls apart when they “have” to reader about nonbinary jungkook cuz they’ve condition themselves to see him as feminine and there for having a vagina.

(which i dont want this to be too long so i wont get into trans people who decide to transition to present towards a binary and still identify as enby. there are men/transmasc people with vaginas who still identify as enby. but also there are intersex people who have presented as women all their lives and have testicles and identify as nonbinary)

so all imma say is anon is puttin’ on their activism like a lil cosplay. its performative asf.

cuz going off jungkook’s recent photoshoots, he’s presents rather androgynous but still leans into his masculinity.

so fictional jungkook can look like calvin klein jungkook and have any pronouns

jungkook can have he/him, he/they, she/her, she/they and they/them or even neopronouns and still be a masc/androgynous enby

- pronouns doesnt specify gender

- gender doesnt specify presentation

- genitals doesnt specify either pronouns or presentation

example: im a nonbinary person who goes by she/they pronouns but i present very masc most of the time and i have a vagina. i’m secure in both my femininity/masculinity, but i don’t wanna be hypersexualized like society views black women and i also hate being hypermasculinized like how society views black men as brutish and predatory. but at the same time you’re not gonna strip me of the healthy relationship ive cultivated with both binaries. i’ve found my own way to express the binary that reaffirms my blackness and isnt determined by yt supremacist standards.

also very weird to assume our lovely author is black. wtf do we have to do with this? keep black people out your mouth cuz its obvi you’re tryna stir division amongst the black and asian community. go on somewhere.

this anon didnt have the range for this convo and i cant say i covered everything because race/gender is nuanced. its quite literally a infinite which is why intersectionality is important.

ooh im tired😭 this was long

there’s like minimal logic behind their argument, and are maybe talking about a topic they’re not exactly well versed in??

of course i can only say so much, from my own experiences and perspectives but i’m not ignorant, and that feels kinda like what they were trying to get at, that i’m a bad person and i’m dehumanising people and im racist 😭 like ??? idk where that narrative even came from?? it’s just sad to me that someone can invalidate a community of people based of a work of fiction and their weird bigoted views of enby people??

see that’s what i was trying to explain last night, being non binary is such a wide spectrum of things for different people when looking at their gender, or lack thereof. because every nonbinary person isn’t a set gender or way of expressing your gender, or how you feel about gender or you as a person and the way you present yourself. hence why i’d never exclusively label a reader non binary. gender neutral sure, because that then gives the reader freedom within themselves to actually see them within the character without me putting a stereotypical label on a nonbinary individual whose existence is gonna be so very different than the next enby individual.

i’m always very conscious about how i write my readers. because although i don’t necessarily see myself as the reader while i’m writing, there’s always going to be a little bit of myself projected onto the reader and i wouldn’t want to force how i view myself as a person onto everyone else who reads my stuff. hence why i’d never mention skin color or race or (in some cases) gender identity. for me, while writing smut especially, that’s where i find it hard to write a character who might be nonbinary, simply for the fact i don’t want to write an experience that i guess i wouldn’t fully understand the emotions of, hence why i would label the reader afab just so i’m not invalidating anyone’s experiences, i’d hate to do that

i’m really grateful that you took the time out of your day to write this, so that there’s another perspective put on the table, and i think it’s an important conversation to have especially if i’ve got weird people lurking on my blog when i’ve tried to make it very clear this is a safe space for all lgbtq+ friends, because really i love you all a lot and want this to be a nice community for us all. and thank you for articulating a little better what i was trying to get at!! idk why i find it hard to just put into words exactly what i’m thinking LMAO

we could talk forever about the masculinisation of black women and feminisation of asian men, it’s such a big topic to cover. and if the anon has actually idk had taken the time to explain exactly how i was disrespectful or racist without just flinging big words about thinking it was gonna make me second guess myself, then yeah i wouldn’t be so offended. but it’s like if you’re gonna come in my inbox with all these big claims then at least come knowing what you’re talking about?? i was gonna be generous and say they had a surface level understanding of the topic but i honestly think they don’t 🧍‍♀️ and again, i think this is a really important topic to bring up and talk about

there’s a reason i chose he/they pronouns for jungkook. i could have chosen they/them. and i had considered it, but if we’re talking about real life jungkook then especially with recent photos, although he’s very very androgynous, there’s still a comfortability within his masculinity, hence why i chose those pronouns for him for his gender fluid identity

fictional jungkook was very much inspired by the recent photos!! very much cutie fun calvin klein jungkook whose gender is so delicious i get mild envy but in a sorta good way!!

thank you for sharing your own experience too!!

OH YEAH idk why they assumed i was black?? it felt like a leeway for them to be racist and i’m not tolerating that on my page on top of them being stupid and accusing me of stuff i haven’t done 😭 i really don’t talk about myself all that much so i have no idea where that notion came from, i hope you guys just see me as like a lil floating star or something cute, just a little entity that writes for you guys as gifts because i like spoiling you 🏃‍♀️

that’s what i’m saying!! like at least come with some understanding of what you’re accusing me of before you start saying words you clearly don’t understand because you just sound stupid LMAO

again, thank you so so so much for even taking the time out of your day to explain all of this!! you’re literally the sweetest and i love you a lot, and thank you for being comfortable enough to share your own story too and helping me articulate what my lil pea brain has trouble saying without wanting to absolutely cuss that person out 🫂 you deserve a lil smooch after all that, and a fun little snack too so go get one!! MWAH 💞

[grimaldiapologist]

Falling in-between / Contradictory identities.

I'm frustrated. Let's start with that. I also have issues, which is the second problem here. The frustration comes from an intersection of two problems: not having easy expressions for what I am, and worrying that my contradictory experiences will be cherry-picked for use against me.

In particular, right now, this issue is regarding my gender and transition status. For the record - I transitioned from female to male medically when I was 20. This didn't pan out in various ways, my body did not like HRT and I was never allowed to have a mastectomy despite desperately needing one, and these factors together made it impossible for me to live as a man long-term, or to any degree of true success. As a result of medical problems arising from HRT, I quit taking testosterone at 26; essentially it was making me sick, but not giving me any results worth writing home about. I had to do very hard soul-searching after that to figure out how I wanted to live my life, but my identity remained the same. This was until I discovered that I had a serious dissociative disorder, which, at 29, threw me in for another identity loop. Through trauma/dissociation focused therapy, an identity that did align with my observed sex at birth surfaced, and took on the everyday role of... well, being "me."

This didn't undo the continuity of a coexisting male identity. In fact, within the parts identified, the vast majority are male-identified. If we assume six everyday parts, two of them are women, one falls inbetween on the male side of the spectrum, and two are men. In the overall system of parts, there are three female parts against at least ten male parts. Almost every subconscious part of what is myself is a male.

But in conversations with people, this is not something I'm going to be divulging. In fact, you can pull nails off of me before I'm volunteering all that information to someone off the street. So what you have is me flipflopping with terms in a manner that absolutely comes across as picking whatever suits me in the moment: in detrans discussions, I'm a detransitioned woman. In trans discussions, I'm a post-transition FtM. They're both true. I am both of these things. And yet, neither is true, because I am both, and they're exclusive to one another, or at least I perceive them as such. So in a discussion about trans issues, you can pull my detransition card against me. And again, you'll have to pull nails before I'm going to volunteer all of the previous information just to prove that I have the right to call myself FtM. In discussions about detransition, this happens much less; people understand that gender and transition are complex, not black and white matters where every story is a succesful one. I have much more leeway just saying "it didn't work out, I got sick, I'm now living as a woman" and people don't worry about it. But this excludes me from conversations that are pertinent to me, as a transitioned person of a gender identity that to date remains just as complex as it always was. Even in detransition contexts, I prefer "post-transition", and would love to call myself desisting rather than detransitioned, because desisting implies cessation of pursuing transition, whereas detransition implies taking a turn back, and I definitely did the former much more than I did the latter. I haven't gone back to anything. I stopped moving forwards because it was impossible. But desisting means ceasing to pursue transition before transitioning, so me calling myself detrans is also complicated and uncomfortable.

I can only imagine the way my language flipflops about this is confusing for my partner and my friends, and I can't imagine what it looks like to an outsider, aside from just looking like I'm lying out of my ass no matter what I say.

And it is tiring. I feel so silenced. And before you offer me the word "queer", I don't want it. I've been called queer and it is not a good, safe, cozy word for me. It is a word that rouses immense dread and distress. I am not able to adopt it, nor do I want to. It fit me ten years ago, after that, I've had it soured for me completely. It's not a choice I'm making. I can't reclaim something that feels like an open wound bleeding uncontrollably. I don't want to call myself any more names.

I just want a voice. I want to feel like I belong and I want to feel comfortable and confident about my place. But wherever I look, I'm not good enough. Further; I hate knowing that when I tag this post as detrans, I'm tagging it into a fetish tag. That's all people like me are to you, it seems. A hypotethical humiliation fetish.

[xhuuya]

My first cat hated men.

I got him when he was just a tiny kitten and I had only come out as genderfluid at the time in college. I was also dating a gay trans guy that embraced being effeminate to some degree. Essentially both of us were figuring shit out, to say the least.

I had him for about 8 years, but had to rehome him towards the end of our time, as my transition had progressed enough to trigger him being extremely stressed, and vocally and physically aggressive. I had broken up with my bf, and was living with two women at this point in my life, so he was able to have some bit of happiness but the moment he saw me, any of that feeling was immediately gone.

I adored and loved this cat so much. When I tell you I did Everything to try and keep him, I mean it. My roommates helped me. We tried so many things. I cried so much at the idea of having to rehome him. I never thought I would be someone on that situation. I just knew he was miserable and I couldn’t stand it.

So a college friend of my roomies, Sally, lost her childhood cat of 16 years around the same time this was happening. She didn’t really want to move on quickly or anything but we essentially begged her to watch him for a weekend, to see if he could/would be happier around her. (This was more complicated than I can summarize here but we didn’t actually push it on her but knew it wasn’t unreasonable to ask due to circumstances I’m not elaborating on).

She agreed and she fell so deeply in love with him that she didn’t want to give him back.

Oh, that was still the hardest decision, despite knowing he hated me. I loved and still love him. She was just so happy and so was he. I knew he’s be safe and loved; I couldn’t say no.

We’ve lost touch since then, and she doesn’t use any social media, but I think about them all the time. He would be around 15 now and I wonder how he’s doing all the time. She doesn’t talk to anyone from graduate school, and has no online presence that know of (listen I’m curious so I check occasionally, not trying to be a creep) so i haven’t been able to ask and just have to let it go, but I hope they’re both doing great.

I love you, Bas, and thank you, Sally. I hope you’re both well. ❤️

It is funny. Recently I had a transphobe argue to me, that "well, it is all made up! Animals will still not know that you identify as a man". Which to me is so funny, because while there has never been extensive research done on this topic, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence showing the exact opposite.

As someone who has done a lot of work with animals, I can tell you, that those animals that for one reason or another like one gender more or less than another often show the same loving or hostile behavior towards people completely depending on the gender the people actually identifies as.

"Sure," some people might say, "because if you take hormons you gonna smell like the gender to an animal." But that is the funny part. Animals often act according to that with trans adults who are still in egg mode. Who have not come out yet. And nobody knows why and how they can tell.

But some of the harsher animals with a "gender preference in humans" are like the best trans indicators. You have not admitted to yourself you are a guy? Yeah, this cat is gonna hate you anyways. Because this cat hates men.

Sincerely the guy who got attacked by this one fucking bunny, who didn't like dudes, several times

[transamorousnetwork]

Why People Are Better Off Avoiding Being Vulnerable

Vulnerability. Mental health and relationship “experts” claim it’s something special. They say it’s something we all should practice in order to thrive in relationship. But trans and trans-attracted people know being vulnerable is hard, scary and not very fun. After all, who wants to be seen as something other than what the mainstream tells is us ok?

Indeed the very act of being trans or trans-attracted demands a level of vulnerability most people needn’t face. It can literally be a life or death decision. But is vulnerability really the key to happiness, relationship success and more? Or is something afoot here that can disempower trans and trans-attracted people?

In this post, let’s explore why vulnerability is a myth and how dispelling the myth can help us live more joyfully. Along the way we may just also discover the key to everything else we want.

Why experts vaunt vulnerability

Vulnerability is both feared and praised. We fear it because it implies possible rejection. As said before, it also can lead to terrifying consequences. Then again, society praises it because we’re told to. Being vulnerable can also feel good because we’re putting ourselves out there honestly. And doing that can feel good. For most though, it’s usually terrifying. So much so, people won’t do it. Especially trans and trans-attracted people. Which explains why so many trans women want to pass and trans-attracted men live on the DL.

But what is “vulnerability” exactly? The definition doesn’t seem to imply something praise-worthy:

So it would seem, based on the definition, that being vulnerable is a bad thing. So why do experts vaunt it so much? One source suggests being susceptible to physical or emotional attack or harm, increases intimacy and trust. Not being vulnerable, it says, can lead to emotional distance, disconnection and resentment.

It would seem being vulnerable then is essential to good relationships. But is that really the case?

Rejection inherent in vulnerability

The trouble with saying it improves relationships is that being vulnerable usually requires a quid-pro-quo situation. I would suggest everyone would be vulnerable in a relationship….if their partner were equally vulnerable. That’s the trouble. No one really wants to subject themselves to physical or emotional attack. It seems extremely logical to me, then, that no one wants to be vulnerable in a relationship either. Which explains why people aren’t.

But there’s something about this vulnerability thing that runs afoul of what’s really happening in physical reality. It’s that being vulnerable is based on something that isn’t happening in reality at all. Well, it IS happening. But only because people believe it’s happening. And that belief is what perpetuates fear associated with being vulnerable.

In other words, the potential consequences of vulnerability is what keeps people from being vulnerable in the first place. Replace the word “vulnerable” with a different word, however, and the whole calculus changes.

What word do we suggest? How about authenticity.

That’s right. If instead of thinking about being vulnerable, we think of being authentic, then we go a long way to easing fear that comes with being vulnerable. The problem remains however, with the essence of what both words conjure: the risk of being harmed. And in most relationship cases, that “harm” looks like “rejection.” Although for trans people and some trans-attracted men, it can be much more than that.

Still, let’s unpack this some more.

Our thoughts make it so

In order to be vulnerable, a condition must first exist. That condition is risk. In other words, the person considering being vulnerable or authentic must first believe there is something they may be rejected over. Rejection can feel bad, but a reframing of the story we tell when “rejection” is experienced can cause that bad feeling to turn into appreciation.

What if, for example, someone rejects us because we share something intimate about us? Does that mean anything? What does it mean about us? It means nothing really. We shared authentically. That person chose something else. In this situation, both parties are better off. We’re free to connect with someone who accepts us. The other party is free now to connect with someone they connect with.

Where’s the harm in that? But when we think the rejection means something about us, then we feel bad.

Now trans and trans-attracted people face a much more complicated situation. Especially trans people. That’s because they have other – legitimate – fears of actual physical harm. Those fears must also be resolved. Those fears come from valid beliefs for sure. But replacing those beliefs with other equally valid ones can be liberating.

We can see, then,  it’s what we think about being vulnerable that makes it scary. We think being that way brings risk. The belief isn’t false. But better feeling beliefs aren’t either. And those better feeling beliefs can change our experience.

Our thoughts make everything. Including the need to be, and the fear of being, vulnerable.

Preferring rejection 

Being vulnerable means having to take a risk. Hardly anyone wants to take risks. But if there is no risk in being authentic, if instead there’s everything to gain, I would say many more people would be that way.

Again, the problem is the thoughts people have about rejection and what they think that means. 

Vulnerability then, isn’t the problem. Making it into a venerated way of being is. Because doing so makes it seem doing something we’re scared to do is something worth doing. It’s not. Instead, it’s better to develop a new set of beliefs around being so that acting authentic is preferable to not acting that way.

That’s easy to do. And it’s not scary. When we do it, the vaunted idea of being vulnerable becomes meaningless. And when that happens, we’re free; free to be who we are. Whether people take that or leave that is up to them. It’s not our problem.

So there’s nothing special about being vulnerable. And, with a little tweaking of our thoughts, we can eliminate that concept from our minds, thereby freeing us to be. Now let’s turn up the woo a bit and see what we find.

^^Some would rather have this happen than be vulnerable. But there’s a better approach to vulnerability. (Photo by Hasan Almasi on Unsplash)

Finding power in changed belief

Believing vulnerability is a thing presupposes there’s something that can happen to us that’s beyond our control. Usually, that something is bad. For trans people, that includes violence.

But, nothing can happen to us that is beyond our control. We invite everything that happens to us through our thoughts and beliefs. I get that’s hard for a trans person, for many people, actually, to believe. But that doesn’t make the assertion false.

If it’s true, we can see how vulnerability would be a problem. That’s because it presupposes risk. Belief that there’s risk is a belief. That belief will create reality consistent with it. That explains why so many fear being vulnerable. And rightly so. It also explains why it feels scary.

Rejection is similar. There are many thoughts and beliefs around “rejection”. Those thoughts and beliefs, like those behind “vulnerability”, create reality consistent with them. That’s why hardly anyone wants to feel rejected.

Change those beliefs though and the experience changes. This explains why very successful sales people, for example, don’t experience “no” as rejection. They think different thoughts and beliefs around the word “no”. This also proves it’s possible to change our beliefs around things like “vulnerability” and “rejection”. Doing so makes one much more powerful.

Beliefs matter…a lot

So if we invite our experience through our thoughts and beliefs about them, that means something important. It means that being vulnerable isn’t the key to anything. Instead, our thoughts and beliefs are. Indeed, thoughts and beliefs are everything. They literally create the world around us.

The better beliefs we hold, the better our life gets. My clients are discovering this. The more they change their beliefs to positive, empowering ones, the better their lives get. My experience is similar. The more I’ve changed how I think and what I believe, the more my life has improved. So much so, hardly anything “bad” happens to me. And those “bad” things that do happen are so insignificant, I don’t consider them “bad”. They just are.

In a short while, a person can create an ideal life, what I call the Charmed Life. This is true for relationships too. We don’t need to experience risk in relationship. But getting there requires something: not being vulnerable. Being vulnerable is a problem. Instead, what’s needed is a new way of thinking and believing. One that invites only good. Including good relationships, ones matching what we’re wanting.

For trans and trans-attracted people such outcomes don’t come over night. A lot of old disempowering beliefs must first be soothed before evidence of improvement really starts showing itself.

But the more true we are to who we are, the better realities we create, including relationships. So changing our beliefs is worth it. It literally will provide us everything we want.