#can also come from people who they themselves accept some cis men are feminine and some cis women are masculine but suddenly as soon as you

[ozymoron]

dude its always "be yourself" till youre trans and now suddenly oh i get to nitpick every little thing about you oh that gesture was very feminine made you look like a girl oh youre wearing a shirt thats cream coloured? seems a little feminine to me oh you paint your nails? so youre a girl after all like ???? youre giving me mixed messages here am i meant to be myself or am i meant to conform to your idea of what a man is in order to be accepted as one by you

[velvetvexations]

I'm a trans woman. You need to stop being weird about men.

The idea that trans women should be allowed in single sex spaces for cis women is completely contradicted by the man vs. bear discourse. Ignore that I keep going back to the meme - maybe it's still doing numbers, I don't know, but it's good shorthand either way. If you think men are inherently suspicious and dangerous, ask yourself: why does that not apply to trans women?

What, exactly, does a trans woman do to make herself different from cis men? How are you not advocating a belief in people being tainted by the way they were raised* which can only logically apply to trans women as much as it does cis men? It boggles the mind how, if that's a true concept, one could simply self-identify out it. Yet, the way transradfems talk, literally the only thing that distinguishes an AMAB better-than-bear from an AMAB worse-than-bear is that the former says they're totally better than a bear and you should take their word for it, which if men are really Like That should be of little comfort or security.

Some, even, will make impassioned defenses of butch trans women, which as a butch trans woman is great. But then they'll go on about how evil men are, and how innocent and victimized trans women are, and I wonder, what, exactly, differs an especially butch trans woman from a man to them? If, like me, a trans butch woman doesn't always wear clearly feminine clothes, has body hair, maybe even a shade of facial hair, and doesn't at all try to train her voice, are you going to be uncomfortable with her right up until she realizes she forgot to put their pin on and you see the she/her? Apparently that flips the switch from someone you desperately don't want to be alone with to someone you're totally fine undressing in front of?

All that sounds like TERFism, which is exactly the problem. The transradfem version of reality is one where TERF talking points are completely logical, because they're both based in the same radfem reality. That's not my reality, YOU have constructed a system perfect for them to operate in, that their ideology is fantastic for pointing out errors of reasoning in, as if it was deliberately crafted by them to be deconstructed. I would not at all be surprised if that's the origin of a lot of trans radical feminism, a psyop to make the trans community weaker with logic twists that TERFism can swing through like the Gordian Knot.

If you accept man vs. bear, TERFism is the only logical conclusion. If you don't, as I don't, then it isn't.

The only alternative is that you think being a woman is the only thing anyone should be and "choosing" to be a man is morally inferior. Which I shouldn't have to tell you is horrifying. It's also again incongruous with at least your defense of butch trans women - what exactly defines a "man" and a "woman" when a butch trans woman doesn't have to try to pass at all? You are literally saying all of this, gender, transmisogyny, misogyny, hinges entirely on pronouns and a difference of two letters in the name of what they call themselves, someone is dangerous or not depending on if they go by he/him.

TERFs will see this and be like "yeah! exactly!" BUT MY POINT IS USING THAT TO SHOW YOU SHARE THE SAME FOUNDATIONAL LOGIC AS THEM. If you don't want TERFs to have a point then you can stop accepting their worldview any day now! Come join me and frolic freely where we think TERFs are wrong!

*socialization is real and the idea pre-dates TERFs who incorrectly use the idea that to say that because a trans woman may or may not** have been pressured by external forces to play sportsball she must be hardcoded to be a sex offender, which is completely ridiculous

**no one can be said to have the same experiences, it's a generalization

[pepcono]

Accidentally got lost in the sauce while writing a reply and ended up with a shoddy essay. So I've polished it up a bit and packaged it in more proper essay format.

Special thanks to @\Undeaddream for always reminding me that sometimes the people you disagree with most are those you respect most.

Consider the "egg"

Consider the "cis men" who state things like "I really want to be a woman, but I'm not trans"

Consider those who wish they were trans so that they could escape the torture of their body but believe that it's something that happens to other people.

Consider those who are suffering, but are unable to accept the possibility they're trans.

In other words, the egg.

Some would believe that what harm is caused by classifying and naming this person is inexcusable, "it makes people uncomfortable," "it enforces gender norms," they argue.

Their thoughts dwell on those who believe themselves miscategorised, or those insulted by the insinuation that some of their characteristics could be seen as trans.

But do they stop and consider the egg?

Do they consider how people mobilise the position "you shouldn't tell someone they could be trans"?

The anti-egg position, although often coming from well meaning thought process, could very well do more harm than good.

Speaking anecdotally, I saw a yt comment thread where someone said: "Idk wtf is wrong with me. I really relate to this [a song about hating masculine features of ones body and wanting to be a girl] but I'm not a cis woman nor a trans woman, I am 100% sure I am not trans! Idk, am I just a freak or what?" Now maybe you dear reader see that and take them at their word, but I see someone who's in the same position as I was. Wanting desperately to be feminine, to escape my "male" puberty but due to internalised misogyny and transphobia is unable to admit why, unable to accept the solution.

Maybe what they need to hear is "it is ok to be a woman", "its ok to be trans", "you're not a freak for wanting this"

Maybe what they need to hear is "you don't need to suffer"

Some people did point this out in the replies, but each was met with similar statements of "you should insinuate they're a trans woman, that's rude" Maybe you, the reader, agree with that statement, maybe you're even right. But I know how I would've interpreted it. I would have seen it as a statement that I shouldn't consider the possibility, it would further cement the idea that "real trans people just know, because here's all these trans people sneering at that idea I could be trans"

But honestly, I'll be the first to admit "egg" is not the best term for this (But that's a whole other thing). But I instead bring this up to highlight that anti-egg discourse doesn't really stack up to the hype. It kinda reinforces that "just knowing" misconception.

In some people's haste to protect gnc men from the travesty of being compared to trans women (or worse, mistaken for trans women!), they don't stop to consider the egg.

But maybe you dear reader, don't see that, maybe you don't see your own denial and self hatred in "cis men", maybe you don't see someone reflecting internalised transphobia and misogyny that you yourself had to overcome.

And that's ok, not everyone has had the same experiences, some (probably) never even had dysphoria, a lucky few might have even never had to deal with internalised transphobia.

But bloody hell if you can't even acknowledge that not all eggs are even GNC in your post critiquing the term. You might want to reevaluate how complete your understanding is.

(also as an aside, egg can apply to "cis women" but the OP I was replying to didn't acknowledge it and as I repeatedly state, what's key "egg" is relating one's own experiences to them, something I do better with "cis men" eggs than "cis women" eggs)

[5and3nevermind]

Hello! A few days ago I was thinking about yoonmin (as I often do hehehe) and I started thinking about jimin and his gender. Now, I'm not sure if he identifies as anything other than male, but it's safe to say that he has struggled with masculinity and toxic expectations when he was younger. There have been some instances in the last few years were there have been some non-bn references, the first ones that come to mind are the fotoshoot with the bigender symbol and taemin's words on suchwita (“jimin also has that gender-neutral charm and also delicate”).

What I wanted to ask you is how do you think gender has impacted yoonmin?

I don't know if you've ever received an anon about this topic but I was curious about your opinion 😅

Personally, I think Jimin struggled a lot in his early years since he felt the pressure to fullfil this assigned strong masculine roll within the group (when they made him lift his shirt and do things like that). From what he's said in interviews, he later learned to accept himself and I can only think about how reassuring it must have been to have someone as accepting and supportive as yoongi by his side. I feel like yoongi is the kind of person who would encourage him to freely explore his gender (his bestie Halsey uses she/they pronouns by the way) and especially through his art (when face came out some ppl interpreted as Jimin talking about his gender and I found it very interesting).

Anyways, I feel like I'm just rambling haha. To sum up we don't know if he's 100% non-bn, he may still identify as a cis man, but still it's safe to say that he has been exploring his gender in the past.

(We'll probably never get a confirmation if he's actually non-bn, unless things in Korea change A LOT.)

Hi anon! Your question about gender in terms of yoonmin is a good one and something I have wondered about too!

First of all, I agree with you regarding Jimin and his relationship with gender. We’ve gotten many clues (and what I would consider more than clues) about this.

In regards to yoonmin as a pair, one thing I’ve noticed are the types of words Yoongi uses to describe Jimin. Yes, he’s called him handsome. But he’s also used gender-neutral or even traditionally feminine adjectives to describe him: “sexy,” “pretty,” “small and cute.” I think he does this because he knows these are the type of words that Jimin enjoys. Typically, when someone gives a compliment, their words are tailored to fit the person they are complimenting.

Another example: when Yoongi quoted the k-drama line to Jimin backstage in Newark, he quoted the male character’s line thus placing Jimin in the female role in that scenario.

(Likewise, Yoongi seems to be perfectly fine with Jimin referring to him as “cute” and “baby,” which to me shows a level of open mindedness that, unfortunately, many men lack.)

They’re both smart people and they’ve been in the entertainment industry long enough to know how fans analyze things. So, even if the female lead in the Like Crazy choreo isn’t Jimin’s reflection (although I believe she is), he at least would have known that some people would interpret that way…and he was fine with that. Similarly, by now Yoongi knows what many fans think of his Cypher 3 verse. Yet years later, he included that verse, unchanged, in his D-Day set list.

I’m rambling now, but my point is they have both demonstrated an accepting/progressive attitude toward these issues and have not attempted to “set the record straight” when it comes to gender (or sexual orientation, for that matter).

Obviously, Yoongi and Jimin are individuals and each of them has their own unique feelings about gender. We can see differences in terms of how they present themselves. But I do see commonalities in terms of their way of thinking, their acceptance of themselves and their acceptance of others. I hope that makes sense!

Here’s Jimin playing with the idea of gender roles and putting himself in the feminine role: shocked that he’s been caught shirtless, while he places the viewer, who is likely to be female given Army’s demographics, in the role of the voyeur (typically thought of as the masculine role). He seems to love doing this, turning the tables and offering unexpected and non-traditional portrayals of gender roles.

Here’s a video of Jimin talking about how he’s changed and grown over the years.

Here’s a video of Jimin showing (again) that he’s comfortable playing with the idea of traditional gender roles.

Here’s Yoongi saying in an interview that everyone is equal.

Here’s a photo of Yoongi wearing his pride Vans.

Here’s a really cute video of Yoongi with a male fan. (He is treating the male fan the same way he’d treat a female fan, giving the high-five and the cute pout. Like he said in the interview, “everyone is equal,” and he treats fans accordingly. I love this video!)

In Yoongi’s case, I understand that these are not examples related to gender specifically. I see these as clues to his world view and his inclusivity, and of course I’m sure he extends that way of thinking to Jimin.

I hope this made sense! Thanks for this ask, anon!

[tailless-whale]

Disclaimer: this post is mostly just me working out my feelings, trying to figure out how I feel etc. Also it's kinda long.

Ok so my partner is coming out as nonbinary (they/she) and I have a lot of thoughts about it...

I'm super excited for them!!! That feeling of accepting that you're trans is overwhelming but also so thrilling. I remember when my egg started to crack and I was like "fuck, I really am a boy". I got such a thrill when I accepted who I am. I'm so excited for them to be feeling that way and to be going through that journey because it's something I'm experiencing myself and it's been absolutely fantastic. Sure there were some painful moments but the positives far outweigh any negatives I've experienced. I'm happier than I've ever been in my life because I'm finally living my authentic self, and I'm so excited to see my partner go through all that and find herself. I love hearing how they're feeling and seeing how she gets a little happier when they tell me about her plans to transition.

I've also been thinking about and reevaluating my sexuality in relation to her gender identity. I struggled with my sexuality a while, and only recently (thought I had) figured it out. I used to identify as pansexual, but when I started dating again I found that I'm much more attracted to men than I am to women. For the past year or so I've identified primarily as a gay man, and my partner's transition has made me question that. I love my partner dearly and I plan to stick with them regardless of how they identify, but I do worry. I think I'm primarily attracted to masculinity, and I'm concerned that my attraction will wane if they decide to be more feminine. I don't think it will, but I do worry. I am a little frustrated though - I thought I had finally figured myself out, that I had a label that fit me - and now I don't know what I am all over again.

I've also been thinking about the challenges they'll face as a nonbinary person in a binary world. I identified as nonbinary for a long time before transitioning to a binary trans man, and it was hard feeling like I couldn't quite express my gender without facing opposition from those around me because I wasn't conforming to traditional gender roles. I don't think she'll have many problems with their friends, but I think some of her family will be a different story. I can see some of their family misgendering them out of ignorance or prejudice, and it's difficult and dysphoria inducing to be misgendered by people close to you. I don't like that she'll probably have to deal with that because I know how badly that hurts. I don't want her to feel pain because they're pursuing what makes them happy :(

I'm also wondering if their gender identity will change over time. Mine sure did! I knew from the beginning of our relationship that although they identified externally as a cis man, that they certainly are not a cis man. To be completely honest, I've been waiting for them to accept that they're not a cis man, and to actually do something about it. I've watched them try to perform masculinity in the same way that I tried to perform femininity before my egg cracked. Our second date they told me they didn't like their name and they prefer to go by things other than their birth name, and that they've already tried out a few names. When I asked them what name they would have chosen for themselves, I filed that answer away and nearly a year later, she told me that she was thinking of going by that same name they told me our second date. They've made so many offhanded comments that made me say "oh yeah, they're definitely not cis" that I was surprised this didn't happen sooner. I'm so happy that she's starting to accept, and perhaps eventually embrace their newfound gender. I do wonder if they'll ever go full girl, but I don't want to push them towards something they don't want or something she's not ready to do yet.

They're planning on shaving off their beard on Thursday and I'm super nervous about that (they started growing it when we first started dating; they've had a beard the whole time we've been together) but I'm happy that she's doing what makes her happy. I know I'll love her regardless of how they choose to look 💜

Also, I love using they/she for her!!! It feels so natural; I always felt weird about calling them a he. I keep wanting to call them my girlfriend but I still need to ask how she feels about that... I default to partner for now but I'll admit while writing this post I accidentally typed "girlfriend" a few times and had to correct myself.

Regardless of my worries, I'm super happy and excited for my partner and I'm looking forward to holding their hand every step of the way as they embark on their journey to trans their gender. I'm literally giggling and kicking my feet thinking about how it feels to reach different milestones and feel validated in one's identity, and I'm so psyched to see them experience those feelings. This is the start of a new era for them and it's so exciting to see how excited she is to do this! :D

[building-made-of-paper]

I hate the phrase "men and minors DNI." It's under most lesbian posts I see and it is utterly useless. I get it. You don't want guys with a dykebreaking fetish coming into your inbox telling you they can fix you. Neither do I. But think about who you're actually telling to fuck off. You're telling lesbians who are bigender and are also men that you don't want them around. You're telling he/him butches that they have gone too far and they can't be lesbians anymore. The trans lesbian who doesn't think they pass reading your post sees that and they don't know if they are allowed to interact. On top of that, the people for whom that is directed will ignore that, because they think they're too good for it. DNIs don't do shit, but that's a topic for another post.

Many lesbians have been in straight relationships with men before figuring themselves out or before coming out or for whatever reason (and that is valid, fuck gold star lesbianism). A lot of those lesbians look back on those relationships with regret, which is understandable. Those relationships that happened before you figured things out can have long lasting impacts and often make it much harder to figure out who you are/accept yourself. This can often lead to a general distaste for men that, while it is clear where it stems from, can quickly turn into radfem ideologies (just to be clear, Those Are Bad. Radfems and TERFs can fuck right off, you are not welcome here). Men are not inherently bad, and women are not inherently good. Sure, there are sociological reasons that some men may feel more comfortable barging into spaces they don't belong in, but that doesn't mean that men as a whole are bad. Not to verge on saying #NotAllMen, but there truly are more good people out there than bad ones.

A lot of the background issues here stem back to the fact that society views masculinity and strength as synonymous to power, ability, and many other "good" ideals. Reinforcement of the patriarchy and the idea that the man of the house should be the breadwinner leads to a lot of men holding the belief that the world is in some way built for them. And in much of western culture, it somewhat is. This makes spaces where these specific people aren't wanted hard to maintain because that is exactly the community who doesn't believe that those spaces exist. Again, DNIs don't work for that exact reason. A reminder to an individual person that they aren't wanted does nothing to fix the societal problem that caused that person to think they are welcome. Additionally, trying to tackle those societal problems with a statement reacting against a large swath of the population does nothing to help fix the related societal problem of masculinity being scary and dangerous.

The other side of this western idealization of masculinity is that femininity is seen as a bad thing. To be feminine is to be weak. To be feminine is to turn away from the idea of the patriarchy and show disdain for it. That's a lot of the reason that trans women are so hated, but again, that is another rant for another time. This leads to the other version of this phrase, which I find worse, "cis men DNI." That means that transmascs and trans men are welcomed, even if these are individuals who have no connection to lesbianism, or are perhaps trying to get past previous history with that label. Trans men are put in an awkward situation where they are either feared for being masculine or they are infantalized and thought of as still feminine. It may seem like saying that specifically cis men aren't welcome helps welcome transmasc lesbians and he/she bigender butches, and while it can help in that direction, it is simultaneously actively invalidating other transmascs/trans men.

A lot of the issues with the phrase "cis men DNI" can be traced to how language tackles the gender binary and the modern attempt to overthrow said binary. As is often the case, language and terminology are behind on the times in terms of being able to refer to a specific group of people, but even looking for better terms is just trying to answer the question "who do I want to exclude from my life" which is a road that quickly leads to radical feminism and radical hatred of men.

The big issue with the radical hatred of men is that it leads to the idea that men cannot do good. It leads to the thought that everything men do comes from an evil inherent in their being male. If men are biologically inclined to do evil, that heavily reinforces the idea that they are dangerous, which does nothing to help the idea of women being seen as weak. Even trying to teach reasonable things like self defense becomes a reinforcement of the idea that women have to protect themselves from the inherent danger of men. From here it is easy to see where transphobia comes in. If men are evil and do everything for the purpose of harming women, the only possible reason a man would want to be a woman is to leverage that in some way. There is this idea that being a man makes everything easier (which is in some cases true but certainly not to any level that this ideology promotes), so why make life harder for yourself if not to do the evil that is supposedly programmed into your very being? Even if this idea isn't taken to the point of thinking there is an evil inherent in being male, it continues to reinforce the gender binary by promoting this difference between masculinity and femininity. These become the strong and the weak. The powerful and the hopeless. Even for those who believe in women's ability to be strong and fight back, this still falls into same trap of seeing men as a danger and a threat and nothing else. All of this leads to an inability to see men as human, and that goes south Fast. I've seen radfems who refuse to believe that men experience anything negative because they think that men have everything perfect. That isn't possible. There is no way for someone's life to truly be perfect like that. Hating men makes them become solely a bad thing in people's minds, and that is very dangerous.

To attempt to wrap all of this up, there is no world in which any variation of "men DNI" will include all the people you want it to, and there is no world in which any of those phrases will keep out the people you want to keep out. Radical hatred of men may sound fun, and there may be many men out there who are obnoxious, but the hatred of men does not lead anyone to a good place. It only leads to negativity and perpetuation of the vicious cycle of mutual hatred, something that will never solve any of the fundamental problems that influence the very issues being identified.

[11natrium]

I suppose that I might share some feeling regarding my own masculinity I've been having about myself to the world, perhaps some will find them relatable.

tl;dr - I'm AMAB, and while I struggled with accepting my masculinity, trans men made me feel at peace and safe with it, and I cannot thank them enough.

Now for the longer version:

For quite a while now (a few years, in fact), I have been struggling with my masculinity, as an AMAB person. I grew to feel super uncomfortable with the implications that came from being a "man", at least as it can be stereotypically understood. I know very well that masculinity has positive aspects, like strength or reliability, but being called a "man" made me also feel like someone automatically perceived as aggressive, or dangerous, or a sex pest, or a creep. As far as I'm aware, I am none of that - but I can't help that being "a man" makes me feel like someone who poses some sort of danger, or is a threat to those around them. It no doubt comes from experiencing toxic masculinity - more so from my peers and general society, as I'm thankfully privileged to have a normal family, where everyone is, well, normal and supportive and non-abusive. Still, that toxic masculinity, or hearing about certain men being just, fucking losers, made me want to detach myself from being called a "man".

This is partially why I embraced the identity of a demiboy. Someone mostly masculine, but still someone who does not want to call themselves a man. To be clear - there is more to my identity than just discomfort with stereotypical masculinity. I have interest in outfits and activities perceived as feminine, there are subtleties to how I like to picture myself in art, using a feminine name (Marcy) towards myself, using gender neutral pronouns (they/them) etc. - it goes deeper than just what I outlined above. That's a story for another day, though, what matters for this post is that I felt that unease with my own masculinity.

I guess this is where trans men come in. Briefly - over time, as I interacted with trans men and transmasc folks in general, I started to feel a weird sort of appreciation, maybe even jealousy for them, like I wished I was more like them myself. Eventually, I started to realise that their comfort and the gender euphoria they feel from being masculine made me feel more at peace and secure with my own masculinity. Seeing as one can feel genuine joy from being a man, from the masculinity they themselves worked to achieve, and from the positive aspects of that masculinity, while also rejecting the toxic parts of it... It just, makes me feel SO much better with myself as well.

Perhaps it sounds silly or obvious? But that realisation that I do NOT have to embrace all the baggage that comes with masculinity, and I can instead pick and choose parts of it, shaping my own version of being a man that makes me feel comfortable is something that made me feel massively better with myself. Being a silly guy gives me genuine gender euphoria - so I just embrace that "silly guy" part of masculinity, and give up on the toxic parts of it, like aggressive dominance, or hierarchical view of the world.

Going onwards, I don't think I'll be changing my pronouns from they/them, or drop the demiboy description of my identity. As I said - there is more to my identity that just discomfort for being called a man. But at least, I can be at peace with my own masculinity.

I genuinely have every single trans man and transmasculine person to thank for it. You made my life better, and I could never show properly just how deep my appreciation for you all goes.

While it doesn't really apply to me, I'm certain that trans women and transfeminine people have a similar influence for cis and gnc women. In fact, I have read a similar post from a female perspective before, and I have no doubts that this post influenced my realisation in how much more comfortable I am with my own masculinity thanks to transmasculine folks.

Trans people are a gift to this world. Their presence alone makes the world such a more beautiful place, period. I wish them all plenty of luck and joy going onwards! And once more - thank you all.

[thedreadvampy]

genuinely though it is challenging to acknowledge that to be productive, feminism must engage with men's experiences and struggles

because feminism exists because we as women are pushed to occupy less space and to make ourselves compliant and perpetually centre our lives around men's needs and wants. it's very, very, very emotionally difficult to square the circle of both recognising that men are people harmed and amputated by patriarchy, and continuing to build ourselves the space to breathe and find independence.

but it does start with a) recognising that men have a valid perspective on patriarchy and are constrained and wounded by patriarchal constructs and b) recognising that, as with any other victims of abuse, we can't fix it For Them, nor is it our responsibility to; we can only recognise their pain and try to offer somewhere to come away from it to.

the challenge that bell hooks and others are offering here though is that it does require shifting away from thinking about feminism as the preserve of women, and towards accepting men (to be clear bc TERFs happen: MEN, not trans women, not trans feminine people) as participants in the movement against patriarchy, not visitors, observers or allies. and that is Fucking Hard and really discomforting to even consider, because all of us as women or as survivors of misogyny have very significant, traumatic experience of having our own needs and experiences constantly pushed aside to make space for men to talk. and feminism is meant to provide a route out of that gendered oppression and silencing.

but if we can recognise that men - even cis men, even straight men, even conventionally masculine men - are harmed by patriarchy, and that men have an interest in dismantling patriarchy for their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of women and other not-men, then we have to look for ways to create space for men as equal participants in the conversation.

because to be frank, femininity is in many ways constructed as the default social role. you have to WORK to be masculine or you will be INFECTED with femininity. femininity is broadly constructed as the absence of masculinity, and masculinity as a rigid, constructed and fragile thing. patriarchal masculinity conceives of femininity as an insidious poison (if you don't proactively raise your children to be Manly Men, they will be Feminised). and patriarchal femininity is definitionally adaptive and flexible - it has to be, because it's there to respond to masculine demands - so we're able to construct Women's Spaces wherever we are pushed to, while Men's Spaces are rigid and inviolable.

Feminism and women's liberation has pushed most traditionally male spaces - work, sport, education, leisure, politics, etc - into having to admit women. (and to be clear, that's a Good Thing - I am financially independent and able to seek fulfillment and safety and stability on my own terms because of it. I am able to find joy that I would otherwise be cut off from because of it. I am able to get closer to building meaningful relationships with men because of it.)

But the same assimilation into cross-gender spaces hasn't happened in reverse - and in many ways it can't within patriarchal socialisation, because men aren't given the tools to be adaptive and flexible enough to find and build traditionally feminine spaces. women's spaces are rarely concrete, formal things; they're things that women build in community with each other, and men, particularly men who are subscribed to patriarchal masculinity, aren't afforded that type of community half as readily.

and just as it's vital to have some spaces where those of us who experience misogyny can discuss that among ourselves, men and people socially treated as men need spaces to discuss among themselves that traumatic experience. but they no longer have the sole claim on historic men's spaces, and they're also treated as outsiders in women's spaces. and that doesn't leave a lot of space to develop support networks for the work of growth.

like I'm very much not saying "you're not allowed to exclude men from feminist spaces" because I am actually pretty 100% on the need for spaces where we can discuss patriarchal misogyny among ourselves without having to handhold people who have no personal experience of it through the basics, or look after their feelings about it. Nor am I suggesting women should vacate historic "men's spaces" like work, pubs, sport, university, clergy, whatever, and get back in the kitchen - we've had centuries of that and that's uhhhhh not a winner, I would suggest. But we do need to engage with the value that those being gendered spaces can have for men beyond the preservation of power, and look at healthier and more equitable ways to meet those needs rather than dismissing it out of hand.

like: why do older men go to the pub and the football? because the pub and the stadium are spaces within patriarchal masculinity where men are allowed a measure of community, intimacy and vulnerability with other men! by making those cross gendered spaces, we provide a lot but we also do remove some opportunity to discuss the pain, difficulty and even joys of patriarchal masculinity with other people experiencing it - and as people who recognise the importance of sharing the experience of oppressive misogyny in spaces exclusively populated by people with that shared experience, we could probably recognise why spaces for men to share with men might be valuable in a context where we understand patriarchal masculinity as violently damaging to men in a way different to how it's violently damaging to women.

that's complicated, of course, by the fact that we have women-centred spaces because women are afraid of men - and men are also afraid of men. Patriarchal harm is produced through fear of men, so men harmed by patriarchy may often feel less, rather than more, safe in same-gender spaces. We're all performing for men - women-centred spaces provide relief for women that men-centred spaces can't provide for men.

so like I don't have an answer but the discomfort the question causes is worth examining. "Should men have an equal space in feminism?" is complicated because yes? no? maybe? sometimes? what would that look like? what do we lose? why should I give up space for men again? how can we change if we keep trying to retain separation? how do we remain safe and challenge gendered violence if we don't have spaces where men are sidelined? how do we if we do? I have no answers but I know it's something important.

[madmanbear]

The trans radfems being upset about not being included in michfest but not upset about them considering trans men women thingy reminds me of a... interesting article someone sent me to try n explain TME privilege........ https://purrcatharsis.medium.com/on-transmisogyny-exempt-privilege-dynamics-874f3969ae1d

Specifically the part that says "Since they are, before and often even beyond transition, categorized as women by the system they are afforded access to women-only support, resources and spaces which would be denied to most — if not all — trans women independent of their transitions. The very material resources that trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERF) fight trans women for exclusive access over. Don’t even ask what this means for non-binary TMA people." (Looking in the replies, it seems like it used to say "enjoy access to", but it got changed to "are afforded access to")

(It also says "And this is where TMT makes clear, that there is no equality here and that about every aspect of transmisogyny marginalizes trans women, but benefits trans men, combining into a quite undeniable privilege over trans women.

Even when it comes to identity itself, trans men, actual men, have an easier time laying claim to womanhood than trans women, actual women. And while this seems to make a weirdly intuitive sense at first, if you dig into it, horror awaits."

Which is just. A Lot . It's a lot ! Even ignoring the everything else the idea that every part of any kind of transphobia or misogyny benefits all AFAB trans people (because that's really what they mean by TME) is just. Completely illogical.?????????? And the logic of the second paragraph also goes in reverse, in that trans women have an easier time laying claim to manhood than trans men do, so I don't know what the authors point actually was with it, honestly.???)

Transradfems do not like to admit to themselves that if trans men (especially those who don’t pass) can access female spaces then trans women who are closeted or early in transition can access male spaces. Some transradfems will categorically deny this ever happens, as if trans women have no history in the gay male community and as if some closeted trans women have never posed as straight cis men.

If you corner them on this, they will claim that no trans woman has access to male spaces ever, or will try to claim that men will somehow tell they are trans women/feminine and attack them even if they’re entirely pre hormones and presenting as their assigned gender. Although trans women are sometimes targeted by homo/transphobia pre-transition that doesn’t mean all of them are incapable of passing for cis men.

Most of the trans women I know were teased for being “sissies” pre transition or were targeted by homophobia before they learned to temporarily blend. That is something they also share in common with many gay men and that is why trans feminine people historically shared space with the gay male community.

I deleted my rant about Mitchfest because it was meandering and I wasn’t feeling it. But the point of the rant was basically: I have no idea why transradfems want to go to fucking Mitchfest. It’s analogous to me wanting to join the Proud Boys. The radfems at Mitchfest are incredibly fucking transphobic. They allow trans men to come if they’re acceptably female-looking and then belittle and misgender them the whole time they’re there, allegedly.

I remember hearing that one year at Mitchfest they had a booth about detransitioning for transmascs, no other representation. They do not welcome us in any other context. It is not a “privilege” to be invited there, the transmascs who go there are basically in a cult. I understand picketing them. I understand wanting to stop them from organizing. I don’t understand wanting to be included or wanting to join them.

[thatfeyboy]

"Everyone feels that way" is so telling tbh. I remember constantly being told that any issue I had with femininity or womanhood/femaleness/etc. was just how other women felt all the time, that every women hates themselves and it was the Patriarchy TM that caused it. I have since come to find that all women absolutely do not feel like this. There may be misogyny in the world that many suffer from but this weird bitterness towards womanhood some of these people display is beyond that.

I'm sure it's not all of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason many are so angry is because they too have some gender dysphoria and there world view completely buries any healthy way to deal with it. It likely would also contribute to their total devotion to androphobia, as if you hate being a woman, making men seem like an even worse option likely provides some comfort. It also lets you vilify those you have any envy for who may be living as men (cis or trans).

It's the same as how there are MRA/incel types that end up there because they are bitter towards women, and think being a man is inherently bad, and that feeling is often caused by having gender dysphoria. Other groups just use these feelings as a tool to weaponize us against each other.

Radfems that ARE trans inclusive are still awful to men, they just do it in a trans inclusive way. To them men don't have unique experiences with oppression or the intersection between being a man and other aspects of identity. According to their beliefs being a man is a simple and unchanging structure in the framework of "patriarchy" and can only ever bring someone privilege. Their movement actively encouraged dehumanizing men and moving towards black and white thinking about those deemed unworthy of sympathy. I'm sure I don't need to explain what reasons they give for that, suffice to say the less "female" you appear the more predatory you become.

As an extra cause I don't know where to put this otherwise, I was deeply hurt by this stuff. It took me years of time and therapy to accept myself as a man and not feel I was betraying other women or mistaking dysphoria for "internalized misogyny" (I had severe sex dysphoria) or that I wouldn't be gross and evil and violent and unlovable if I was/accepted I was a man. I cannot begin to imagine how bad it would have been if I'd been properly indoctrinated at that point in my life, for myself and others.

Spot the difference

Terfs saying “Everyone feels that way! It’s just internalized misogyny” about transmasculinity

“Trans inclusive” radfems saying “Transmascs have no unique experiences, it’s just misogyny!”

Oh wait there is no difference

[olderthannetfic]

Now I'm at the point where I think if someone in the queer community is trying to tell women, femmes, afab people/whoever to stop enjoying BL, they also need to be consistent and tell all queer men to stop doing drag because they both engage with gender in the same way.

Everything those folks tell afab people [they're 1) capitalizing on male queerness without any of the struggles that come along with it or 2) depicting x identity without authenticity or 3) it's not #ownvoices/representation or 4) it's using stereotypes of x group that have historically harmed them] also apply to queer men who do drag in terms of them exploiting women for entertainment. Women are a marginalized group in society; that's a fact. A cis queer man will never truly understand what it's like to be a woman. A cis drag queen will likely never have to know what it's like to be constantly told from infancy your body and sexuality just exist for men. Your interests in fashion or makeup or academics are just for men. [By this logic, a cis woman could reasonably find an issue with a cis man then taking this aspect of personal and societal struggle and bastardizing it for entertainment/humor when women every day are killed, harassed, and attacked for not performing femininity for men.] Cis drag queens also use stereotypes of femininity as punchlines or jokes in this escapism when the ones who have to deal with the fallout in society are women. Drag queens are no more "representation" for women than BL characters are for queer men. No one goes to a drag show if that's what they want, and drag queens shouldn't be expected to do that, just like afab BL creators shouldn't be forced to conform to what anyone thinks is "good representation" for queer men. No queer man has been hurt by BL, just like no cis woman has been hurt by drag. Let's be consistent.

Now, is it also true that there are a lot of nonbinary and trans women who do drag as a way to express their gender? Yes. Are they likely the majority of drag queens? No. So, how would we decide who can appropriate aspects of the female experience? We can't. The same goes for afab BL fans and creators. Yeah, lots are trans or nonbinary, but it's ridiculous to expect everyone to out themselves or write a biographical manifesto to justify their tastes in entertainment. Are there drag queens who are misogynistic? Yes, the most famous example is RuPaul. Does this apply to all? No. Just like BL fans and homophobia.

However, everyone knows that talk of getting rid of drag queens is a common talking point of conservatives. This talk around afab BL fans should be considered in the same way.

--

Huzzah!

I've pointed this out many times. Hell, I've seen a blog post from a BL type author who is leery of women writing BL that pointed out the same thing and came to a similar conclusion.

One of the more interesting commentaries on the cis gay male culture aspects of all this was in David Halperin's How to be Gay. Either I'm misremembering, or the kindle price has dropped from academic book horror levels to something more acceptable, at least to my US eye. ($14.16 currently) I highly recommend it.

He uses the word 'appropriation' to talk about what drag queens do, though he doesn't mean it in a "and that is obviously universally bad" way. He explicitly addresses the fact that some women will find drag misogynist, and that's okay. It's okay that they feel this way. It's okay that a subculture makes art for a particular audience that may be offputting or disturbing to other audiences.

The book is about a lot more than just drag. It goes into all of that cis gay male culture like loving The Golden Girls and venerating tragic women of classic Hollywood. I have sometimes, as a woman, felt almost like I was tresspassing on gay men's territory to love Joan Crawford and her ilk. Which, if you think about it, is fucking nuts.

Halperin doesn't talk about BL at all, at least not in that book, but his observations are like a mirror of fandom and inform a lot of how I look at #ownvoices.

The book is based on a class he taught with that same joke title. The point was that he did not find the performance of normative US cis gay male culture ("What a dump!", Golden Girls love, etc.) to be at all natural. He had to learn it. All his friends laughed about how he was the last guy to teach anyone "how to be gay".

Anyway, as he taught the class, he noticed something that shocked him: students were connecting with The Golden Girls and campy, queer-coded old Broadway plays much more than with the direct, literal representation, even when that representation was on Broadway in a similar tone and type of media.

The book is his exploration of why. To boil it down: gay men were seeking things that felt true internally, not externally. They were often identifying with situations and dynamics or with all of the characters. They didn't necessarily want to be told "Here's your self insert! Now relate!" It's full of the same kind of talk of critical distance that oldschool slash meta engages in.

I actually have a whole long meta piece about this: What I Want is To(o) Direct.

I got the idea after reading Halperin and bounced up to Francesca Coppa at a con to blather about it. She was like "Oh, I just wrote a book chapter on that." That chapter is: Slash/Drag: Appropriation and Visibility in the Age of Hamilton. You can find it in A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies.

Drag is great, but I hate the misogynist attitude that men can borrow from women to express their oppression or their interior worlds metaphorically, but women cannot borrow from men for the same purpose.

The inevitable transphobia that comes with strict policing of either is just the cherry on an already towering shit sundae.

[velvetvexations]

I feel like a lot of the trans women saying that masculinity/manhood is always rewarded in everyone because patriarchy often forget that the opposite is true, actually, for people who are seen as women/put in the "woman" category.

Because yes, trans women are usually forced into manhood and "rewarded" for being men, and punished for being women. But that's not because manhood is universally rewarded in everyone, but because partriarchy sees having been born with a penis as "man".

It also sees being born with a vagina as "woman", and every deviation from that is *also* punished.

Yes, people who are seen as women/girls may have more freedom in expression of gender (depending on where they are from. I hate when ppl act like people afab everywhere can just dress like men without punishment. There are so many countries with laws on what "women" (and those treated as women because of their agab) can wear, and if anyone believes for one second that breaking these laws is REWARDED in any way, they're so fucking deep in their own head and need to talk to someone from these countries) but that freedom was fought for by feminists! Feminists have fought to be simply just allowed to wear pants. It's ridiculous to look at how it is now (in the western world) and make conclusions on that without looking at *why* it is that way now and how it was before.

And people are usually expected to grow out of their tomboy-"phase" by the time they reach their late teens, or early twenties at latest, and become a feminine woman, wife, and mother. If you don't do that, your masculinity gets punished.

And the masculinity of people afab is also only (begrudgingly) accepted (in SOME places in the world) as long as they're still visible as women or girls and their masculinity is hot and serves cishet men. As soon as they step "too far" out of these roles (by being non-binary or men, or being "ugly", fat, or anything that would make them "undesirable"), their masculinity gets punished. Horribly.

It's really infuriating when (trans)radfem trans women try to act like their experiences are universal and whenever someone says something that disagrees with them, they must be lying or "delusional" (yay, ableism! so progressive /s) for thinking that they were, in fact, punished for their masculinity or manhood...

Sorry for unloading this on you, didn't know where else to put it. And thank you so much for listening.

I think a major issue here is that no matter how much we try to reason things out and work through why they act the way they do, radical feminism, trans or cis, ultimately comes down, at some point, to a deliberate decision to prioritize egocentrism and their own desires over seeing other people as real, actual people - not even other transfems, who they just sexualize and try to control, or call a TERF if they can't. And it's hard to reason with that.

Like, they have to know on some level that they hyperinflate trans women in particular being "socially murdered"* to use as social capital and terrorize younger** transfems into isolating themselves. Maybe a very long time ago for some of them it came from the distress they felt from the legitimately immense danger transfems face in a variety of contexts, but they've shot far beyond that now and just don't really care. They've built a cage of unreality around themselves that makes me feel like I'm talking to aliens.

Like the other day, I was talking to one who insisted that the tee-em-ees will not show up for me. Like, I said they did, and she said they won't, and I was like, but they DO! They have! Always! I've seen it with my own eyes, directly for me specifically! But it was just "who hurt you," "let yourself be angry," "don't settle for just scraps," "they won't treat you better if you throw yourself at their feet," "social murder," and it's like WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ARE YOU HAVING A STROKE? WAS THIS A DREAM YOU HAD?

And what about the deliberately cruel fuckery, the constant derision of the most petty things like forcemasc? What the fuck do they get out of wrongly asserting that women are never punished for masculinity and never have a problem with being viewed as masculine, like why are they doing that, what is their goal? Because it seems like it's literally just "mock and invalidate the sexual interests of others and deem it an inferior copy of our thing."

What do they get out of misgendering cis and trans men for forcefem funsies and telling them to suck it up? They don't really believe that their forcefem joke is the only thing that might make an egg crack. That's extremely obviously a lie. They're doing it because they want to, because it's their kink, because they don't care about the feelings of other people, and they can use transmisogyny as a convenient defense when people ask them to moderate literally any of their behavior for the comfort of everyone else to literally any extent while demanding everyone else shut up and defer to them on every single topic in every single situation.

And this stuff with D20 and Ophiuchus and the transmasc character being treated better? A lie. Just fully making it up. Inventing it. Fabricating it. For attention.

I've never had one acknowledge it when I've tried to explain that I first learned about all of this from transmasc friends bringing it to me so they could defer to my opinion.

They're determined to stay like this. It sucks.

*truly a phrase that makes me livid to even think about now, they reduce it to about the same level of seriousness as forcefem jokes, every single time it's so thoughtlessly hollow and self-obsessed but you could guess that from it being a fair description of every thought they externalize

**let me make this clear, I'm referring to young adults, I am not accusing anyone of being predatory towards minors nor am I saying the motivations are necessarily sexual anyway, although clearly transradfems don't care about the effect their hyperbole will have on the mental health of minors exposed to it and trained from a young age to never trust anyone, so underage transfems are very much a concern here, but not in the sense that they're being directly and personally abused in any way

[mueritos]

How do you feel abt the topic of transmisandry? I personally don’t like the term (bc it implies that misandry is real), but a lot of discussions of specific transmasc oppression and transman oppression have devolved into people saying transmasc oppression is small potatoes and (in some cases I’ve seen) not real or just a by product of misogyny and there doesn’t seem to be any other term or tag where we can talk abt the oppression specific to transmascs , particularly trans men of color. So I wanted to ask your opinion on it, if you had one.

Hmm. I've had different ideas about transmisandry in the post and have sortve agreed with some aspects of it. I'll be inserting a read more.

It's true that transmen are treated much differently than transwomen, ciswomen, and cismen. But I also don't think coining this oppression as "misandry" is helping anyone. People don't hate transmen because we're men, they hate us because they think we're women. Terfs believe we're sisters lost to the patriarchy and trans agender, transphobes dont even see us as men, and lots of cis queer people infantilize transmen because we're seen as men-lite, again, not even as men. We're fetishized because we are seen as men-lite or as "pussy boys" (again, viewing us as women, and ofc theres nothing wrong with transmen calling themselves pussy boys, its just weird when cis people do it). I do genuinely believe we have, will, and do experience misogyny, only because misogyny affects everyone. Just because a cis man isn't going to be targeted by misogyny, he is still affected by it because of his distance from misogyny (he's not viewed as a second rate human for being a man), he profits off of it, but he is also forced to be a misogynist and internalize misogynist ideas that in the end do not allow him to be emotional, a caretaker, a father, a parent, a husband, and a good person.

Transmen do experience misogyny for the fact that we have lived as women, whether some of us view that period in our lives as us being women or just performing femininity; to be honest, it doesn't matter, because any perception of femininity is seen as inferior. I don't think its wrong to say that transmen experience misogyny, nor is it transphobic to say this. Like I mentioned before, misogyny affects everyone, and we all gain and lose from it in many ways. Female abusers gain from misogyny because they're seen as simply "crazy girlfriends/wives,etc" who do harm that is normalized within that archetype, harm that society as a whole accepts. Transmen gain from misogyny the moment we're seen as "cis-passing", because men will switch up their language around another man in regards to what they say about women. But transmen are affected by reproductive rights, sexual health access (abortion, family planning, birth control, STI/STD testing), and transmen are infantilized largely because we are still see as a lesser sex than cisgender men, something which I would argue IS misogyny. As a transmasc latine, I've had to face heavy gender norms that largely did not shift at all for me even after I transitioned. I was still expected to keep the house clean, cook, take care of children when needed, and while this should be expected of everyone, it was still something that was never expected or even seen in the cismen of my family. In fact, a lot of transmascs of color have to navigate the role of both, and while this is optimal as really everyone should just be doing both roles (and roles as in let's de-gender their functions, like everyone should be cooking, cleaning, doing housework, yardwork, child rearing, etc), it is again not really expected from cis men in communities.

I do think we can come up with a better term, and I've always opted to say "trans oppression" or "transmasc oppression", because while our infantilization and dehumanization IS different according to our status as transmen, I still have a hard time believing it is COMPLETELY different from womens'. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a transmasc who is open to the fact that we still have proximity to womanhood, much like transfemmes can be honest about their proximity to malehood. This isn't to say that transmascs or transfemmes have a "male priviledge" or that transmascs ARE women and that transfemmes are secretly men, or whatever else the terfs say, I think its just a fact that because we have to oscillate between various genders, roles, and identities, that that has made us gain the experiences of those roles we've had to inhabit, voluntary or not. I spend a lot of time in women's spaces, not just because as a feminist one should, but because women's spaces used to be for me! And truthfully, I think women's spaces should be open to trans people; our oppression is rooted in misogyny, just as it is rooted in racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, and etc.

As for a better term, I think its best to leave that up to the members of our community who have largely shaped it. My proximity to whiteness is far greater than other trans people, so if anyone were to come up with new language or terms, I would prefer to use the ones created by BIPOC trans people. I think it's one of the reasons why I prefer saying "trans oppression" instead of specifying a oppression; when we use hyper specific terms, we move away from the various intersections and similarities between other communities and their oppressions, similarities and communities who I think we need to have better connections and solidarity with. I think we can talk about how transmisogyny primarily affects the lives and well-being's of transwomen and still acknowledge that misogyny also affects transmen without stepping on any toes. I say this, of course, with disclaiming that we can't say this without acknowledging intersectionality (as I always make these claims with intersectionality in mind, but I do have to disclaim because I also realize not everyone walks through life with these intersections constantly in mind). Racism, ableism, colorism, etc need to be acknowledged in order to help those who need social networks, assistance, and aid the most.

I understand the need to label everything we feel; it brings community and a term to rally behind. But I think using the language we already have can do the conversation justice, we just need to have these conversations with nuance, which unfortunately for a lot of people, they just like...do not have. The lack of queer history, solidarity, and queer experience that so many people have...and then these are the people that end up speaking the loudest. The best thing i can say is build solidarity and community, continue learning, continue talking, and get off the internet. Queer spaces are much more meaningful IRL than online.

I hope that helped a bit. It's a bit lengthy and i could keep talking, but I would rlly appreciate any further thoughts, ideas, or critiques :)

[girl-with-bones]

Also note: there actually aren't clear lines on any of these terms or groups. I know it's easy to think that way when our conversation boils down to who is oppressed more or in specific ways, but like.

You probably don't know your chromosomes. If you've never had them actively tested, you could be some flavour of intersex without knowing it. Does that mean you have the right to speak over known intersex people (especially about their uniquely horrific experiences)? Nope. But it does mean that there's not a lot of use in separating these groups or talking about "stealing" terminology.

We are one movement. The queer community may seem fractured, but we are all lgbt+, by definition. Okay, actually, even that line gets blurry sometimes - but I think that kinda proves my point! In my eyes at least, the goal isn't that all our microcommunities have their unique stuff that nobody else can touch, the goal is to live comfortably with our identities.

If that means certain terms for certain groups to more easily raise awareness about their particular struggles, cool. But we're a community based on identity, and identity is very fluid and does not care for the 'rules'. There are always going to be exceptions. People have been calling themselves girlboys and fagdykes for as long as we've had the words and the concepts.

I think the most insightful thing ive read about this particular situation is "tumblr is where the exceptions tend to gather", and I wish I could properly credit that quote but I cannot remember where I saw it.

Either way, guys, we're on the queer freak website. We're in the place where the people who feel like they don't belong anywhere else come. So yeah, there are gonna be he/him lesbians and afab trans women and non-binary intersex girlboys and to me, that's fine. Good, even! I mean, that's what diversity is. Accepting all flavours of people, however they choose to identify.

But also, we might have a whole generation of queers growing up in this political landscape. Where all they know is a community divided, constant squabbling, and the pressure to be completely inoffensive 100% of the time.

Maybe it's time to go back to basics?

We are a community of atypical people, made a community by being atypical. There are many different ways to identify, and so long as we all work together, we can create a world where each one is accepted and celebrated.

We all suffer in different ways. Misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. But the systems that cause that oppression harm everyone. To some degree, cis, straight men are affected by all three of those - think about how many men in your life seem somehow repressed or insecure for fear of seeming 'gay' or 'feminine', which thanks to those forms of oppression, are deemed bad.

Of course, it's important to note that there is a difference between interpersonal and systemic oppression. Someone shouting slurs at me if they somehow perceive me as non-white is not any less racist just because im not. However, because I am completely white, I am afforded a million and one privileges across society - fairer treatment under the law, statistically better housing in better areas, easier time finding work, etc.

We have a lot of work to do - homosexuality is still criminalised in well over 60 countries. The state of transgender healthcare worldwide is appalling, intersex children are still operated on with zero consent from anybody. But that work can and should come before debating over who's label is less offensive.

Donate to queer charities, if you have the money; spread awareness at your school or work, if it's safe to do so; attend or run lgbt+ events, again if it's safe.

Yes, it is a true statement that trans women experience certain forms of oppression by being specifically transfem. And it is a true statement that trans men experience certain forms of oppression by being specifically transmasc.

But in my view, what's way way more important than who has it worse, is actually supporting each other. Because we all have it bad. We are all atypical, and in some way suffer because of it. And in other ways, can thrive and celebrate that queerness!!

Let's build each other up. Make a strong community. Dismantle these old systems. We have a community in enough numbers to change the world, and we have already done so plenty of times. That's the goal.

As well as being unapologetically queer as fuck 1000% of the time 😋

can perisex ppl also id as afab trans woman (i'm bigender man/woman and i feel my transness affects both but i don't want to snatch terms from intersex ppl)

my sibling in christ do whatever you want forever 🙏

[cuntess-carmilla]

The level of performance you demand from bi people as a whole, but especially of bi women, is motherfucking insane. I really don't get why you all demand bi women virtue signal their sexuality by "rejecting" men in order to not deem them gross lesbophobes by virtue of existing. "Even" if they prefer men that's not necessarily out of some internalized homo/biphobia. They just like men. That’s kind of part of (most bi people’s) bisexuality. Shocker, I know.

A lot of the behaviors you all accuse bi women of (not taking other women seriously as partners, for example) are behaviors a lot of lesbians in denial exhibit too but in us you see victims of our own pain and misogyny who need help and understanding, while in bi women you see vile irredeemable perpetrators who must be ostracized and punished.

You blame them of their own abuse at the hands of cis straight men in ways that if you remove the "bi" from "bi women" you would recognize as disgusting victim-blaming, WHILE rejecting them & pushing them out of LGBT spaces, which, guess what you fucking geniuses; leaves them to have cis straight men as their only viable option. Funny how that works. You're all "women should stay away from dating bi women" or "bi women fetishize lesbianism by wanting to be with women" but shame bi women for being with men IN THE SAME BREATH. What the fuck do you want them to do? Be celibate for your own biphobic comfort?

I legit saw idiots on Twitter say "normalize lesbians only dating other lesbians" as if that's not what's normalized already. Bi women are already seen as gross sluts that kiss women at parties to turn men on and only seriously date men. What the fuck isn’t normalized about lesbians dating lesbians only?

You think that I, a literal fucking dyke, didn't see women at some point as hot for sex and men as the only viable partners for serious relationships? Would you see me as a disgusting dangerous misogynist for having been there, or as struggling with internalized homophobia? If it’s the later, why don't you extend that same compassion to bi women? Only difference there is that I'm a lesbian and they're bisexual.

Sure, they like men so being with men isn't INHERENTLY torture for them like it is for me, but you don't think that thinking/behaving that way is traumatizing for them too? They love women and are depriving themselves of that experience out of internalized biphobia, misogyny and homophobia. You think that doesn’t fuck them up too? They're hurting too, but you think that, unlike a lesbian who does the same, THEY deserve that suffering.

And no one is telling you to date them or to suffer for them through it just because they're suffering too. What you're being told is to see them as the non-straight women they are who're suffering too and understand the complexity of their situation the same way you would someone like me.

You think too that the “solution” to the horrendous rates of IPV they face with cis straight men is swearing off men. Would you tell straight women to do the same if they don’t want to be abused by male partners? You wouldn't. Because you see straight women as not having "an option" but think bi women do and thus they MUST be asking to be abused. Literal “asking for it” shit. It's all victim blaming + Boys Will Be Boys, but add a "bi" to it and it's progressive somehow.

This points to you seeing women's attraction to men as only ok when it's not "chosen", just a passive reception of misogynistic violence (which, way to take away the agency of women’s sexualities, you dumb bitches), but when they IN THEORY have a "choice" because they also like women, their attraction to men is active instead of passive, and thus they're cock-sucking sluts who’re choosing to endanger themselves. You see women whose desire for men is active, as deserving of whatever results from their involvement with men. You can't be a biphobe without being a misogynist.

You see bisexuality as a fractured amalgam of homosexuality + heterosexuality instead of its own standalone identity, and thus they can and MUST choose one or the other, because their “heterosexual” attraction and their gay attraction are in active competition within them like the fucking two wolves shit. You can’t be a biphobe without being a homophobe.

Bi women's attraction to men is NOT normalized and biphobes are living proof of it. It's not normalized; they're bisexual, not straight. Their attraction to men coexists with, interlinks with and isn't independent of their attraction to women. Bi women ARE shamed and punished for liking men because they don't like men alone, they simultaneously like women and those are inseparable for them.

If it was normalized, it wouldn't be widespread to blame them for the abuse they receive when involved with men, like they should pick a side for their abuse to count or matter. They wouldn't be pushed out of LGBT spaces for being with men, it wouldn't be seen by other LGBT people (even many bi women themselves) as a flaw in their sexuality that makes them a gay-straight chimera. They wouldn't feel ashamed of their attraction to men. They wouldn't be seen with suspicion for liking men if it was normalized.

Them simultaneously liking men is seen as not loving men "correctly" AND as not loving women “correctly”. No LGBT women (including cis bi women and straight trans women) are seen as doing love and sex "correctly".

You can only claim bi women's attraction to men is normalized if you see bisexuality as a Lego combo of straight + gay and thus their attraction to men is separable from their attraction to women. It's not. They're not cherry-picked bits and pieces of heterosexuality and homosexuality. They're 100% bisexual, always, no matter in what way their bisexuality expresses itself. Be it bisexual with no preference, bisexual with a preference for women, or bisexual with a preference for men.

It's not 50-50% straight-gay, 25-75% straight-gay, or 80-20% straight-gay respectively. ALL are 100% bisexual-bisexual. If you can't respect that, you're a homophobe and a misogynist.

And yes, it is HOMOphobic to see bi women with suspicion for liking men. You see "homosexual" attraction as inherently in jeopardy if there's a coexisting "heterosexual" attraction because the gay one will be lesser and you see the "straight" one as a threat that'll take precedent. That’s your gay insecurity from internalized homophobia speaking.

Then too, there's a reason biphobes think bi men are secretly gay, and bi women are secretly straight. You see men as the superior and inevitable choice for both. That's misogyny. If you're a biphobe, you ARE undoubtedly a misogynist and a homophobe, even if you're gay and/or a woman yourself.

Every time people make armchair judgements of bisexual women as man-worshipers all I can think of is my sister who cried rivers of tears to me about how painful and stressing it is to over-perform her attraction to men who're not even her type (she likes gnc men!) just to stay closeted, and when I think of that, I wish so badly I could slap each and every person doing that.

And yeah! You read right, GNC MEN. Bisexuality is "gay enough", "even" in their different-gender attraction, that plenty of bi women prefer gnc men, and plenty of bi men prefer gnc women. In fact, plenty of bi people, including the cis ones, are gnc themselves (with a specific tendency towards androgyny but there's many who're distinctly masculine/feminine at it) and thus much more visible as gay than someone like me; a fucking lesbian, but I'm fem-presenting.

"Bi people can stay closeted while in relationships." So can gay men and lesbians who have beards, who hide our partners, whose partners are trans and closeted, if we're trans and closeted ourselves, or if we’re single and not visibly gnc.

My relationship would be seen as straight by outsiders because my fiancé is a closeted trans lesbian. Unless you’re a transphobe you would NOT call that a fucking privilege. It’s not a fucking privilege that she’s forced to hide herself and hide that the nature of her exclusive love for women is gay. That shit fucking kills her inside. It’s not a privilege that to keep the love of my life safe and myself too I have to pretend that our love is straight when it was so fucking hard for me to just detect, let alone ACCEPT and take pride in that I don’t like men.

All of that keeps us safe, but at great emotional cost. Being closeted is safety for all LGBT people, but it’s not a privilege, it’s PAINFUL. You understand this when it comes to gay men and lesbians, and can feel compassion for us. Why not for bi people? Why are you so angry at bi people? Why do you hold so much contempt for bi people?

I'll tell you why: BECAUSE YOU'RE BIGOTS.

[nothorses]

This thread on Twitter (also give @Azure_Husky a follow!!)

Linked Article Transcript below

Content warnings for transphobia against transmasculine people, including violence and harassment It's easy to say that transmasculine people get male privilege and face less oppression than many other trans people, but only if you don't actually listen https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/9/1877651/-There-is-a-hidden-epidemic-of-violence-against-transmasculine-people

I hear pretty constantly from transmasculine people about the violence they face from cis people and the erasure, condescension, and "suck it up, you're the oppressor now" attitudes they get from other trans people. 

We are failing the transmasculine parts of our communities. We are failing our brothers and masculine siblings. We need to get better at listening to transmasculine people's concerns and working together rather than fostering hierarchies of oppression within transness 

Once transness is involved, shit gets complicated. Simple responses of "misandry doesn't exist because men have the power" assume transmasculine people have access to the same privileges as average cis men when frequently they don't. 

One of the saddest things about being someone who talks about this is that i regularly get transmasculine people giving heartfelt thanks for the smallest mentions of their needs & concerns bc they're so used to transfeminine people ignoring their existence or being antagonistic 

We need to do better. I refuse for some of us trans people to base our fights for equality and justice by stepping on the needs of other trans people. 

I see transfeminine people I care about and respect who will sometimes share "let's make a world without men" type things and like I have had these feelings too, I struggle under misogyny and have a bunch of bad experiences with (cis, especially but not exclusively) men. *and*- 

- i've seen too many of my transmasculine siblings' hurt as they are constantly lumped into "just as bad as cis men" baskets (which I also have feelings about but is a larger topic I think) & have heard from too many transmasculine people who have spent years in denial bc of this 

I've heard from too many transmasculine people who have put off transitioning, tried to avoid accepting their gender, because they internalized the constant stream of this shit. And I love trans people too fucking much to keep letting it go. 

I get that for many of our communities there can be some incredible trauma around masculinity, either because it was enforced on us against our will or due to violence and/or sexual assault. And i don't debate the validity of that trauma. 

And also we can't extrapolate our trauma into "this segment of trans people, by virtue of their gender, is worth less (or worthless)". 

I mean if we want to dig into it, a lot of us transfeminine people get attacked by transphobes under the auspices of trauma regarding specific genitals or gender expressions or body types. And most of us can agree that their trauma doesn't mean they get to denigrate us. 

Honestly I'm tired. And also I acknowledge that my tiredness about this cannot be even a mild fraction of the exhaustion of the trans people targeted and erased by this must be. 

So I'm calling on y'all and asking you to please do better by *all* trans people. I get the joy and relief in venting about men. I do. We live in a misogynistic society and a lot of us suffer under the hands of a specific gender and sometimes we need an outlet. 

But at the very least please be aware of when your venting is in a public space where it *is* going to harm and affect others, and specifically other trans people (since I don't have the spoons to get into a larger discussion about cis men currently) 

Know that every time we make vent-jokes (or not jokes) about how everyone who is masculine is worthless to us, we are directly damaging other trans people, and possibly painfully forcing some to deny themselves or stay closeted because who would want to become The Enemy, right? 

And I feel like I *have* to keep talking about this because if transmasc people stick up for themselves, I see how often they get shot down as just another "not all men" concern troll or like they're trying to talk over feminine people 

Hell I've seen threads where a transmasc person starts the thread to talk about transmasc issues and *still* people have declared it derailing or speaking over others. How do we address their oppression if they aren't allowed to discuss it anywhere? 

So as a transfeminine person I've got allyship privilege here where I may be condemned as having internalized misogyny or being an assimilationist or something but at least I can't be seen as just another dude talking over women

(i use the binary language there thoughtfully bc a lot of these Us vs Them dichotomies tend to erase nonbinary people or pretend that all nonbinary people are centre or feminine of centre on the gender spectrum) 

Just. Do better. Please. Like. Just listen to transmasculine people with an open heart for a bit and hear the intense transphobia and discrimination they also face and consider the impact of your words on them. 

It sucks to see people who are generally caring and thoughtful about many types of oppression just.. Let it all go when a chance to lump transmasc people in with The Enemy comes up. 

Addendum: I've had a couple people express concern that I'm saying that transfeminine people shouldn't address when they are facing transmisogyny from transmasculine people and I hope that it is clear that isn't what I am saying at all. 

Transmasculine people can be transmisogynistic, absolutely! I've had experiences with that too. What this thread is about is the fact that for *some* people, transmasculine people as a whole are considered less marginalized by dint of their masculinity and it isn't that simple. 

So saying broad statements about transmasculine people isn't "punching up". Its horizontal violence if it's coming from other trans people or can be punching down if it's coming from cis people. That is what this thread is meant to address. 

By all means we should be discussing and addressing transmisogyny. But transmasculine people discussing the specifics of their own concerns isn't in and of itself transmisogyny. We do no one any favours by trying to silence that. 

This thread isn't about transfeminine people never speaking ill of transmasculine people or vice versa. Its about calling-in a specific subset of transfeminine communities for treating transmasculine people as a whole as disposable and The Enemy.