#cis women 100% benefit from the oppression of trans women

[lesser-vissir]

Author of the "transmisogyny is the same thing as misogynoir" post made a new post about how cis women are not our oppressors.

Qualified it by saying "universally" but that just betrays a misunderstanding of systemic oppression.

Either cis women are our oppressors or aren't. There is no middle ground where only the "bad" cis women benefit from transmisogyny.

100% we should have solidarity with cis women since we are both affected by misogyny, but it genuinely feels like this person is gonna come out and say transmisogyny doesn't exist in like, two weeks time.

[sophie-frm-mars]

Transmisogyny discourse on here has such an annoying shape to it.

Like I know that a bunch of it is just because it's from people who are / have always been very online / don't have much life experience as with all discourses that take on annoying shapes so I've been trying to not get too fixated on it but like,

Okay TMA (Transmisogyny Affected) and TME (Transmisogyny Exempt) are absolutely useful and valuable terms in the discussion of transmisogyny and how it works, because you need to be able to talk about who transmisogyny directly affects in order to talk about it. The much larger group of the total population is TME people, because that's (broadly) all cis people, and transmasculine people. So the majority of transmisogyny is necessarily directed from TME people to TMA people, but it's important to understand that as a social force it is actually directed from everyone towards TMA people. Trans women also engage in and perpetuate transmisogyny, sometimes incredibly vicious and harmful transmisogyny - the point of these terms is to identify the groups relevant to the discussion, not to identify an innocent oppressed class and an oppressor class who does entirely 100% of the social dynamic.

The next annoying part of the discourse is that in talking as if TME people = the transmisogyny doers, we keep winding up at a transfems vs transmascs discourse. This part of the discourse is like 1 part transfems misidentifying where the fight worth fighting is to 5 parts transmascs wanting to talk about ways they're also oppressed to like 20 parts raw transmisogyny. Yes, people who perform masculinity under patriarchy are more respected by partriarchy and get some benefits from that, and this is reflected in the differences between experiences of transmascs and transfems. This will be true everywhere that there is the basic patriarchal binary gender division between masculine (possessing agency, meaningful subjectivity, power) and feminine (being a type of property that belongs to others). Incidentally this is why the dyke butch/femme dichotomy is just there to sell more gender.

Everyone should get to perform their gender in a way that makes them happiest, and the problem is that we live under a patriarchy, which disempowers some people for the ways they perform their gender. I'm getting really basic here because some people on here talk like they need reminding.

The real reason the discourse is annoying though, just like all online discourses are, is because none of it is about how to organise to actually fight transmisogyny - that is, to make things meaningfully better for transmisogyny affected people.

2 years ago in the UK a teenage trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was stabbed to death after a prolonged campaign of transmisogynistic bullying by her classmates that the adults in her school life were absolutely aware of and did nothing about. Her death was the most important thing to every trans person in the UK for a moment, and then the political energy just dissipated without gaining any momentum. This is because organised structures of trans community, protest, politicisation and direct action just weren't there.

3 years ago in the UK a cis woman, Sarah Everard, was murdered by a police officer. There was an organised vigil which was politicised by Sisters Uncut, a feminist direct action group with chapters across london and the UK which had evolved to embrace police abolition over the course of its existence. The police escalated against the vigil and the spectacle of the police crackdown on women mourning the death of a woman murdered by police became a crucial moment in police abolition discourse in the UK. Because Sisters had already been laying down the organisational infrastructure for years, because it had been holding discussions among members and because it had responded to its members needs, it was in a strong enough position to act quickly and make change in the public consciousness. (You can read more about this in Abolition Revolution by Aviah Sarah Day and Shanice Octavia McBean.) If there was an organisation half as well put together as Sisters Uncut present in the trans community in the UK when Brianna Ghey was murdered, the organised response could have done something similar and meaningful.

I wrote a bit here about how trans people could use an assembly-organisation model to achieve meaningful change, but that's just my personal proposal for what would make a difference. The larger point is that discoursing over transmisogyny online, just like all discoursing online, is just shadows on the wall of the cave.

[boreal-sea]

It's reductive to categorise groups of people into "afab" because of how they were born, trans women experience a specific misogyny that's both transphobic and misogynistic, they share a lot of experiences as much as cis women and to insist that biological genitalia is what makes "sex oppression" happen is not only transphobic but proves we as a society, fail to recognise the harm trans women go through, afab and amab are terms that need abolishing, it's doing more harm than good. A trans woman will go through more misogyny than a trans man. That's just facts.

A trans woman will relate to a cis woman more than a cis woman would relate to a trans man, to insist otherwise gives terfs ammo to insist that we're "not biologically women" (afabs) and makes it so there's a language to discriminate, "afab only" spaces, it's bigotry disguised. Trans women ARE biological women, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

- trans woman from previous anon

It's not reductive to talk about the reality people who are assigned female at birth have to live with every single day.

I am not insisting that genitalia is what "makes sex based oppression happen". That's ridiculous. Misogynists don't hate people who were born with vaginas BECAUSE we have/had vaginas. They hate us because hundreds of years of cultural patriarchy DECIDED people born with vaginas were lesser people. The vagina doesn't cause the sexism, it's just (one of the many ways) society identifies who to hate.

Genitals are a visual marker our society uses to categorize people at birth, and ignoring that this happens is ridiculous.

I actually said in my first response that trans women are very much included in the abuses slung at people assigned female at birth, so I'm not excluding trans women from anti-female sexism. Trans women are very much victims of it!

Yes, I agree, trans women are the targets of a unique form of oppression that comes from an intersection of sexism/misogyny and transphobia. That is 100% true! Transmisogyny is very real!

Sexism is based on hating people assigned female at birth, people assumed to be female, femininity, and things culturally associated with femaleness. And that includes trans women.

Sexism unfolds like a rotting flower from that core. Many people become victims of it.

"A trans woman will go through more misogyny than a trans man".

How can you know? Really? EVERY trans woman? EVERY trans man? Because I fucking guarantee this statement is not universal. There are trans women who have faced less misogyny than me. I didn't start transitioning until I was in my late 30's. I experienced misogyny that whole time. Are you gonna claim I didn't?

And are you so fucking delusional you think that the instant a trans man comes out, he STOPS experiencing misogyny!? NEWSFLASH: that's not what fucking happens. We don't instantly become cis men with all the societal benefits. Many of us never pass. We don't get to stop experiencing misogyny. Fuck off.

Why are you insisting on binaries that opposite each other? Why are you trying to throw trans men under the fucking bus when we're your fucking allies in this shit?

[transirfanon]

Reflecting on The Trans Community as a Trans Person [EXTREMELY LONG POST/VENT]

INTRO

This is a post reflecting on the trans community as I have been relearning and learning things over the past month.

(There are probably spelling mistakes as this is at it's core, a vent)

I have been delving more and more into radical feminist spaces (not gender critical or "TERF" spaces) and radical feminists have allowed me to spot the cognitive dissonance trans space gave me, understand misogyny more and be able to reflect on the problems in trans spaces. I have become a better feminist and I want to continue to develop my own ideas. This is a messy post, I am writing this as catharsis as I have been mentally struggling with all these realizations. If you wanna talk more we can DM.

MATERIAL REALITY/SOCIALIZATION

I first original first delve in radical feminist began when I noticed how much Trans people deny certain realities about things. I first started seeing this problem 2-3 years ago when I began using social media more which led me to opening up to input by radfems that I use to wave off and dismiss. A lot of trans women online would accuse trans men of having male privilege, benefitting from the patriarchy and not experiencing misogyny. But the trans men they would accuse would often not be passing trans men. These ideas were wildly popular. At the time I thought that was ridiculous, especially when they would outright ignore things like medical misogyny, something that doesn't care if you're passing or not.

Essentially their argument was trans men experienced these things under of the simple fact that they were men, no more, no less, accept it. I realized the argument was ignoring materiality and recently, I've begin to notice this ignoring of material reality permeated everywhere in trans spaces and the the type of activism they push.

Trans women, usually the more extreme activist types would say stuff like "Actually trans women never experienced male privilege, even when they were closeted", and "Actually people could tell they were women" or "trans people experienced different socialization from cis people" or even worse "gendered socialization doesn't exist".

Trans women who lived their lives for years as regular degular men weren't ever experiencing male privilege? I would see the shared trans timelines they would do to show off the big transformation and they look like the manliest men to ever man in the "before" section. But no, they never experienced a touch of male privilege, at all (in fact they were possibly still female socialized!). They would often point to having more more girl friends, or being bullied for not being masculine enough as proof of the lack of male socialization or their true female socialization. But cis men have had the exact same experiences? These or not insane concepts, in fact being bullied for being feminine is a staple of male socialization. Male socialization is not everyone explicitly praising you for doing the daring act of being born male. Cis men can have and have had these exact same experiences and continue to be misogynistic and clearly male socialized, look at a lot of gay men despite their ridicule from the patriarchy. There is no "girl soul" or "girl brain" people are sensing from you that allows them sense a closeted trans woman and a cis man despite many wanting it to be true. That is wildly misogynistic.

Gendered socialization is so specific it permeates everything, how people talk to you, how you move around the world, what DOESN'T happen to you. It's all so gendered that it's unavoidable. And what about sex based oppression? Which is 100% real. Cultures where if you're born female, it's shadowed with disappointment and even death, is that not sex based oppression? Would you not be benefitting if you were born male in that situation, not even a little bit? In reality, these people have no idea whether or not they have been male socialized or female socialized and it is extremely simplified in their minds.

I believe in gendered socialization and that is something you must believe if you are a feminist, how could men possibly learn to treat women like shit for centuries unless you believe it to be a biological fact. I believe that's what 99% of trans people go through because its a fact of the reality and the patriarchy we live in. I can almost immediately tell when a twitter account is run by a trans woman based on the stuff they say, how the act, what they find funny, everything. Do they think it's just a coincidence trans women are on the primarily male dominated site that is reddit and trans men are on the predominately female dominated site that is tumblr? And don't get me started with the "gendered socialization isn't real". Now we're just denying how patriarchal oppression works.

When it comes to denial about gendered socialization, I've noticed trans men are more likely to outright say "they were female socialized" or "grew up as women", than trans women. I believe this is due to the denial of it being over compensation. Trans men are more likely to admit their socialization at it has negatively harmed them and is an example of them experiencing oppression that many will deny but trans women will deny their socialization as they don't want to admit they were ever in any way benefitting from patriarchy or that fact that their views could have been affected by the patriarchy.

GENDER ROLES

Recently another thing I realized is that the infamous "TERFS" may be right about trans people enforcing gender roles. I think it's still possible to be trans and not do those things (it has to do with sex dysphoria), but there's been a growing trend of trans people pointing to their masculine clothing or feminine clothing and saying "how can people misgender me when I'm wearing this!". This is outright supporting of gender roles. Wearing masculine clothing now equals "man"? What about butch women? A butch woman can look exactly like a trans man, are butch women now supposed to be he/him-ed because they're doing as described "male gender presentation?". This is so reductive on so many levels, gender-presentation should be thought of a patriarchal construction, not a tool to validate somebody, and way too many trans people are not fighting against this problem.

I'm starting to rethink if trans people are deconstructing gender or actually putting gender on a pedestal, something we don't want (I am a gender abolitionist). I've started to deconstruct the idea of "gender euphoria". I have some problems with the concept of "gender euphoria" I will talk about later but I'm starting to wonder, is gender euphoria once again pushing gender roles? I have no problem with people being happier as more masculine and more feminine if it's being true to themselves, it's the "gender" part I'm starting to have a problem with. Are we once again gendering things when that should be the very thing we are against? Being "feminine" makes you feel more like a woman, being "masculine" makes you feel more like a man? That feeling shouldn't exist at all if we are trying to deconstruct gender and social roles? We should be fighting for the opposite effect. I understand trans people want to go through their lives as a certain gender and pass and using gender roles to their benefit helps with that but... on the other hand, we're using gender roles and upholding gender roles in order to get the validation we want. Is that a good thing in the long run? I am reflecting this myself as a trans person and I'm starting to break away from it as a I become more sex-based when it comes to my trans identity and how I understand myself. It's a lot for me the process.

I'm more for gender euphoria being about changes to your sex I think I prefer that rather than stuff like "makeup" or "not doing the dishes". I understand it can make trans people feel more like a man/woman, it makes sense because we live in a society that genders those things but....once again....those feelings are a patriarchal construct. There should be nothing that makes you feel more womanly or manly at the end of it if we want to destroy gender roles right? I think it contradicts out "intended" goals.

WHY PEOPLE TRANSITION

Now onto analyzing why people transition and how misogyny can be rooted in that. This has been a very recent discovery of mine. I have been "researching" by going through so many trans people's accounts regularly, reading about trans people's experiences and their thoughts, trying to grasp a greater understanding. And because of this...I have become more and more disillusioned....

I have been more disillusioned with how I see especially trans women, as I originally really respected, were fascinated and looked up to them but now... I have become disgusted by a lot of them, especially white trans women which has shocked me and I am saddened.

This view that maybe trans women could have a serious problem with misogyny began with a tweet where a trans woman told a twink "he was basically a woman because he was a bottom and 5'2''.

Is this how they see women? Submissive things to eventually become? That's what you say passively say like it's an acceptable thing to admit? how worse could the misogyny be if that's something acceptable to say out loud?

Being in MTF spaces and seeing what they relate to, what they like, their experiences.... it's drenched in so misogyny it's sickening, and they see no problem in it. A lot of their desires to transition are rooted in misogyny. The anime, something that has a HUGE problem in how they portray women is treated as a goal. The childish imagery, the infantilization, I hate it, I hate it when cis women do it and I hate it when trans women do it, but it's so prevalent in trans spaces it's ridiculous. There is no criticism of it with them, just pure idolization.

And don't get me started on AGPs. Recently I've come accept AGP as a real things despite trans people dismissing it and me dismissing it myself. Because of this...I have become prejudice towards AGPs and they make up a large percent in the community, especially in the west. I have become fascinated with the concept of AGPs when I kept seeing how much trans women over sexualized themselves and were obsessed with porn and sex on their "normal" social media accounts (not NSFW specific). The constant talk about "euphoria boners" which I originally found kinda weird but accepted and their obsession with anime women made me weary. I never read anything about AGPs from people who are against trans people, never read shit from Blanchard himself, I wanted to see the experiences of MTFs from themselves and why they transition and oh god....

And it's harder for me to completely reject AGPs because it seems to really damage their health and lives, but their reasonings for transition are definitely problematic and go against when I stand for, especially when the community is dismissing it and ignoring the misogyny that lies within it. I would at least like for trans women to point out the misogyny in what fuels their desires to transition. I also think AGPs are the reason why "incel/nazi to trans" is so prevalent which I noticed a couple years ago and was confused by. It's probably the reason why so many trans women are on 4chan.

Trans men do the same thing too, AAP is real. Their desires to transition are rooted in sexuality as well but, I am less annoyed with them due to living in a patriarchal society. The way men and women are viewed are very different. What fuels AGP trans women is much more problematic due to misogyny than what fuels AAP trans men. Trans men hype up the regular ass looking men they see in movies and pinterest tho still idealized of course while trans women are hyping up depictions of women that are rooted in misogyny (stuff they see in anime and in porn). AGP Trans women still do get envious of normal ass women as do AAP trans men, but porn is still a major part of their trans experiences due to their paraphilias.

The problem is, I have rarely seen a trans woman interested and obsess over the beautiful women you see in tv and film like trans men do. I find that to be a lot healthier depictions of women rather than porn for god's sake.

Woman as a concept is so packaged, commodified, idealized, catered and aestheticized due to the society we live in, do you you truly believe your perception of woman is entirely pure? Without misogyny?

Do you think your view of women and what you want to be doesn't have any underlying misogyny when porn and anime has been a big part of your understanding of your trans identity? Do any of you people want to do any introspection at all whilst claiming to be feminists? I think this problem is what leads a trans woman to say a man is basically a woman for being small and submissive.

TRANS ACTIVISM (Chronically online edition!)

When it comes to these sorts of trans women I've noticed they tend to be white, the most outspoken about transfeminism and transmisogyny. Is this because they went from "Straight White Men", the ultimate benefiter of everything, to being looked down upon in society? So now their oppression is their biggest identity and they have it so much harder than everyone else (Cue the "trans men are oppressing me" posts). Often when I look at these accounts, and I see what they look like, it's very clocky trans women. They very rarely pass.

Now HSTS trans women, I feel no prejudice for as there is no porn they repost for me gag at. They usually aren't very loud about their oppression though they obviously are very oppressed. It's harder for me to distinguish between a HSTS trans girl running a social media account and a cis girl running a social media account unless their very vocal about their transness. I don't think they are immune to being misogynistic but generally they tend to have less hostility towards cis women (which I think is important in being allied with cis women when it comes to destroying the patriarchy). They usually pass more and seem to be less porn brained but still sexualize themselves similarly to the way cis women do (when other trans women do it, it's fucking ridiculous, it's like their whole lives revolve around a fetish [puppy girl, diapers, etc.]) I don't think HSTSs are breaking any glass ceilings or gender roles, they tend to be very gender conforming women and do things I think are very patriarchal, but of course their transition goals are "average (pretty) cis woman" and the average cis woman is still very influenced by the patriarchy.

OUTRO

Radical feminist may read post and say "DUH!" but it's harder for trans people to recognize these sorts of things. I'm not sure how to go about these feelings as I know radical feminists are not the biggest fans of me and is difficult for me to say something like "AGP and AAPs aren't real trans people" as I know it's not simply a easy fetish they can put on and take off, but what I want to is self-reflection in trans spaces when they perpetuate misogyny. I want gender abolition to embraced, I want radical feminism to be embraced. I want cis women to be our allies though they may disagree with trans identities. I don't want gender roles to be put on a pedestal because you wear it like a pronoun pin. I'm sick of so much. I miss my more trans positive self, the less I knew, the better.

[kittymeow180]

Honey (and I s2g I'm not saying that in a condescending way), if you realize gender is a social construct and was created as a way to control/oppress/other certain people, what's the issue with others defining their gender? It doesn't hurt you if a trans woman says she's a woman. It doesn't hurt you if a nonbinary person says they're genderfluid. I agree with you with what you said about gender! You're 100% right, and I'm saying this as a trans person. But we are not hurting you by defining OUR genders for OURSELVES.

If you wanna come for anyone, come for cishet men, especially cishet white men and ESPECIALLY cishet white male politicians. Because THEY are oppressing you. THEY are taking your rights. THEY are trying to hurt and control you. But we aren't. I promise we aren't. There's no reason for us to do any of that; it literally just wouldn't benefit us in any way to harm cis women like that.

I promise you, trans people and cis people have more alike, more in common, than many would like to think. And I really wish we could just realize that and treat each other better.

Sorry this was such a long message 😭

if gender is meaningless and doesnt exist then why are we so chill with normalizing hating ur body and spending thousands on surgery??? the only thing gender does is push gender roles further on us, being trans relies on the existence of gender which is intertwined with gender roles. because of this it took away any meaningful discussion for sex based oppression, same sex attraction. it pushed the idea that gender is having shorter or longer hair, that if a child likes something of the opposite gender roles then they arent their sex. that if you dont feel like your gender ( which makes sense because its a strict set of gender roles ) then you arent female or male. it reduced being a woman to just a 'feeling.'

gender doesnt exist so why do we make it this hard for ourselves? we literally have people suffering and feeling like they are in the wrong body and for WHAT? something that doesnt exist and was made up to control us? whats the point of us hating our bodies, why are we told the only way to fix these feelings is to pay thousands for surgery instead of yknow, this thing we used to call accepting ourselves. you wouldnt tell an anorexic person that the only way to accept themselves would be to get skinnier would u? of course not thats mental illness. but why is it ok for us to tell kids that they will kill themselves if they dont get surgery and that theres no way they will ever be comfortable in their own body unless they get surgery because YEAH ACTUALLY your born in the wrong body and you actually shouldnt learn to accept yourself but instead you should know you will forever feel like this and it wont get better unless you get surgery. think about why you are so uncomfortable with ur sex and the gender pushed on u and just ponder about it for a little. think about everything you feel uncomfortable about gender wise and then think about the root of that

GENDER DOESNT EXIST sex does, and were simply just people. yet we allow ourselves to suffer so much for what?

yeah your right male politicians are oppressing us and taking away our abortion rights yet we arent even allowed to call it what it is anymore ( misogyny ) because then it will be like " um ackshually its not misogyny its just they like controlling afab bodies specifically "

you gain nothing from 'defining your gender.' you acknowledge its there to control and hurt us so what do you benefit from it? what are you suffering for? think of how much less we'd all suffer without it.

[discyours]

Sort of connecting to the last answer we can say that oppression women face is solely based on their sex or its more nuanced you think? i ask cause I often hear trans people talk about how it’s the ”feminine looking” people who are oppressed so trans women are just as much as cis women (and trans men are excluded from it, here i also heard they find out how much harder it is to get by in society as a man opposed to being seen as a woman)

The nuance is in the fact that society did not arbitrarily decide that it dislikes femininity. The hatred of women (female people, the childbearing sex) came first, the hatred of things associated with us, people who look like us, and men who "lower themselves to our level" came later. And the fact that most misogynistic men didn't study the history of female oppression to find out why, exactly, they're supposed to hate us. A subconscious belief that women are less competent than men doesn't have to have anything to do with whether or not we have a uterus, even if that belief did originate from a society that's formed this association through pushing us into a role where we're really only considered to be well-suited for giving birth and raising children (as pushing us into that role leads to the only people who are capable of creating new life to do more of that, and that ultimately benefits men).

Then there's the matter of passing, how common it actually is (near 100% when you put in effort according to some of the trans community, absolute 0% according to some gendercrits, both groups are incredibly wrong), and how many parts of life are actually affected by that. I passed very consistently when I was trans and did find that I was treated a lot better when people thought I was male (which is what pushed me towards feminism in the first place). That absolutely gave me an advantage over more female looking women, but it would've done jack shit to improve my access to things like birth control and abortion (luckily not a lot of restrictions on those where I live). In fact some trans men find that they have less access than cis women do, because insurance won't cover it after having their gender marker changed. Passing trans men aren't generally at risk of being cat called but can end up in incredibly dangerous situations if they're arrested, even without getting their gender marker changed. It's complicated. Same thing goes for trans women. Both passing and non-passing trans women can be discriminated against, though for different reasons. There's aspects of growing up male that may benefit them even after they start passing (the ratio of trans to cis women in software comes to mind), and there's parts of female oppression that will never affect them like abortion bans. There's also parts of life where you don't need to pass at all to experience different treatment, ie signing a work email with a feminine vs masculine name will likely affect the way clients respond to you even if you don't remotely pass (which is interesting for me to think about as a detrans woman who still uses a masculine name).

So yes, there's a lot of nuance. And I do wish people would get better at dealing with that fact. It doesn't need to be a competition who suffers more, and we don't need to deny that trans women can be affected by misogyny in order to be able to acknowledge that it's still rooted in sex-based oppression.

[susiephone]

Imagine thinking that wanting straight people to be accepting of gay people is a "trap" and not like, literally THE entire goal of the modern LGBT rights movement since its inception

okay. this is in response to me saying “respectability politics is a trap.” which it absolutely is.

but i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here. let’s define respectability politics, shall we?

several people who are more well-spoken than me have talked about this. to quote this article on the subject:

Respectability politics is a school of thought that utilizes respectability narratives as the basis for enacting social, political, and legal change.

Respectability narratives are representations of marginalized individuals meant to construct an image of the marginalized group as people sharing similar traits, values, morals with the dominant group.

essentially, respectability politics is when people in a marginalized group (queer people, disabled people, people of color) wish to be accepted by the majority, and thus present themselves in a way and behave in a way that the majority deems acceptable - and pressure others in their marginalized group to do the same. for example:

“Not all bisexual people are sluts, I’m bi and I’ve been in a committed relationship for 20 years!”

“I’m gay, but I’m not one of THOSE gay guys, I hate shopping and I don’t like to flaunt my sexuality at all!”

“Lesbians aren’t really all masculine, I love makeup and having long hair.”

(I’m using examples I’ve seen in the queer community because I’m queer; I know this happens a lot in communities of color, but I am not qualified to speak on that at all.)

this stems from a desire to be accepted by the majority; for the purposes of this discussion, straight people. we hear straight people say things like “i could never date a bi person, they’re all cheaters” or “i don’t mind gay guys, don’t just shove it in my face” and “why don’t lesbians act like women if they love them?” and, in response, some people go, “i don’t act like that!! you can accept me! i fit in! i’m respectable, i’m not like those guys, they embarrass us!”

there’s also a lot of people saying, “don’t reinforce the stereotype.” as if it’s OUR fault straight people stereotype us.

so this leads to shaming within our own community:

“You’re bi and polyamorous? Wow, way to make people think we’re all two-timing whores.”

“Makeup? Jesus, we get it, you’re gay, you don’t have to make it a pride parade every time you go out.”

“You look like a teenage boy, this is why everyone lesbians aren’t real women.”

and that all boils down to:

“THIS is the example you’re setting? This is the face you show to the world? Don’t you know you’re representing us? No wonder they don’t respect us.”

and that’s the real problem: telling other queer people, “it is YOUR fault you’re not accepted, YOU aren’t acceptable, YOU reinforce these stereotypes, YOU should try and be more respectable, more normal.” and the thing is, “normal” is defined by the majority. THEY decide what is acceptable behavior for us. and guess what? 

most of the time, that boils down to, “It’s fine if you’re different... as long as you’re as close to what I deem normal as possible. As long as I can’t tell you’re different.”

in the queer community, this sort of thinking has led to the exclusion of butch lesbians, femme gay men, nonbinary people, non-passing trans people, trans people in general, people who use any pronouns besides she/her and he/him, bisexual people, ace people, aro people, pan people, polyamorous bisexual people, people who have an active sex life, sex workers, people who have changed how they identify, and countless others. these people get shoved aside by the Good Respectable Gays, who are eager to say, “We’re not like them, we’re just like you!” in order to be accepted by the mainstream. and it still doesn’t work. even the most macho, would-never-guess-it gay guy is bound to face some level of oppression or otherness at some point in his life. it doesn’t matter how much he fits in, how much he distances himself from the Unacceptable Queers; it won’t work 100% of the time. how’s that for a punchline?

there is no point in trying to file off the “unacceptable” parts of our community just to please straight people. 

if a person hates all queer people, no matter how they act or present, they’re a homophobe.

if a person doesn’t hate queer people, just the ones who shove it in your face and sleep around and won’t shut up about it and buck gender norms and use weird pronouns and expect people to learn their new name and change their identity every week... they’re still a fucking homophobe.

and why the fuck are we trying to please homophobes, again?

so when people say lil nas x is bad, actually, because he “reinforces the stereotype” of gay people going to hell and thinking a lot about sex or whatever, they’re playing right into respectability politics. why can’t he just talk about his sexuality in a normal way? why can’t he express himself in a nicer way? why does he have to use that imagery? why does he have to make straight people uncomfortable?

lis nas x is a gay black man who grew up being told he’d burn in hell for being gay. and he made an awesome song with a legendary music video saying, “fine. i’ll go to hell, just like you want, and it’ll be great. i’ll take the damn place over and make satan fall in love with me. and i’ll have a great time doing it, because i’m proud of who i am, and i won’t apologize for it or be ashamed of it anymore.”

to see that and wring your hands, worrying that a straight person will see it and decide to be homophobic about it, and pinning the blame for that on nas is missing the point.

every time we as a community make ourselves lesser or change the way we present just to be accepted by the majority, they move the goalposts, and someone else gets left behind. and the beautiful thing about the queer community is that there is a place for everyone who is left out in the cold by the straight, cis majority.

“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” was the rallying cry for a reason. we’re different, you think we’re weird, you think we’re deviant, you don’t get us, and that’s fine, you don’t have to get us. we’re not going anywhere. get used to it.

respectability politics is a game you cannot win. so stop playing.

[nothorses]

I think it is so ignorant that someone (let alone many people) would argue that because trans men see ourselves as men before we transition, we can't be harmed by anything directed at women...

Not to even get into the whole "sometimes learning to associate with new pronouns/etc is difficult and you may still cling to old ones on accident" or the whole "even though I am a man my anatomy is not 100% identical to a cis man's therefore certain comments still hurt" (ie. "vaginas are gross", etc)

But also, I am only allowed to be myself because of feminism? Without female empowerment and the advocation for equal rights, as an AFAB person I would never have the level of autonomy needed to be trans without feminism? And there is a connection there because of this, undeniably, there's this weird place where it's not man vs woman it's just (marginalized) genders vs the patriarchy...

I wouldn't even say it's just "marginalized genders vs. the patriarchy"- I think it's everyone vs. the patriarchy. Or, at least, individuals without significant power, privilege, or influence vs. the patriarchy.

Even the theoretical cis/straight/white/abled/wealthy/etc. man does not necessarily have power over the system, does not control what patriarchy is or does, and does not have the protection from the system necessary to truly break from forced patriarchal standards without consequence.

He might be significantly better off than someone else in the same position, but the fact remains that if he wants to show emotional vulnerability, softness, enjoy or wear something outside of what the patriarchy allows, or attempt to fight the patriarchy itself- he will be punished. Oftentimes by women!

And I think once you start to see this, the rest of it starts to fall apart, too.

It's not Men, Individually who are oppressing Women, As A Class. It's Patriarchy, As A System which is controlling the population through its dictation of "allowed" self-expression, identity, and internal relationship to oneself. There are people more severely targeted than others by this control, but to act as if there are magical lines between who is Actually Harmed by this system vs. who exclusively benefits is just ignorant.

Which is why it's so fucking weird that people claim trans men "can't be harmed by misogyny" when, like, among all the other reasons (non-passing trans men, the unique nature of internalization, medical needs, etc.) that statement just doesn't make any fucking sense. Cis men are harmed by misogyny sometimes. Of course the class of men seen under patriarchy as "women but even more out of control and stupid" are harmed by misogyny.

But when you get all your theory from Tumblr posts over 50k notes and your own head, I guess you tend to have some gaps in your understanding of reality.

[qweerhet]

good lord maybe you people will fucking accept this if it's not coming from a trans man (you won't), but trans men do not have privilege over trans women for being men

like, at all

trans people exist in a fundamentally different gendered space than cis people do. none of us can access the same gendered privileges as a cis person, including among each other. gender is fundamentally and completely immaterial and acting like trans people can oppress each other materially over something immaterial and entirely internal like "feeling like using these pronouns this day" is ridiculous.

male privilege is inherently cis. even if you're going to argue that this is the case for many axes of oppression--i.e. male privilege is inherently abled and of a cultural racial majority--that is true, and there's something to be said about how, like, telling a disabled man who is legally considered property of his mother that he has "male privilege" is laughable and, frankly, in how it's typically used, violent.

but that is not the same idea as the fact that, in an extremely fundamental way, trans men do not have a life experience that allows any aspect of male privilege. at all! like when we say "trans men have male bodies and male experiences because they are men," what we're trying to articulate is that manhood is fundamentally and completely not based on access to male privilege. man is a gender, nothing more and nothing less. it is a 100% internal experience that is solely and only about how you see yourself and how you want to present your body based on that self-perception.

being a man has literally nothing to do with being privileged under the patriarchy, having any kind of body, having any kind of legal rights, or having any life experience or history. "you're a man" cannot be used as a "gotcha" against a man suffering gendered oppression because being a man has literally nothing to do with that, it is only about self perception.

the above also applies to literally any gender! fundamentally all external expressions of genders are decisions you make based on how you perceive yourself and how you want to present your body to others! there is no "privileged for being a man," there is only "privileged for fitting into society's man slot," which is not based on your self perception at all. there are men without male privilege and there are people of infinite other genders that have access to male privilege because gender is a fucking scam made up to sell more bathrooms and it doesn't have a material relationship to someone's life experiences, body, personality, or honestly literally any aspect of their existence (including pronouns and appearance! i guarantee you i can find a man who uses any pronouns you can think of and looks like literally anything you can imagine, somewhere in the world).

i am trans and i am not a trans man and i am not saying this for my own personal benefit, beyond the fact that the gender binary and cis experience getting pushed violently on trans people within my own community gets me personally hit by transmisogyny and more generalized transphobia, again, within trans spaces!

(and yes, for fucks sake, sex-conforming people have privilege over varsex people, that's a different conversation entirely and bringing it up here would be derailing. and no, trans women and transfems do not generally have access to male privilege, although there are some who've discussed closeted experiences through that lens, it's a hyperpersonal experience and generally speaking most do not see being closeted as having afforded them male privilege--when i say "there are people of other genders who have access to male privilege" i am talking about the extremely thin slice of sex-conforming people who are not entirely male but identify as having access to male privilege and talk about this. a good gender politic needs to account for literally every good faith expressed life experience, no matter how distasteful you find it personally.)

[armillary-spheres-lover]

Hey

Idk if you ever got the answer to your thing. But I’m a person who is queer but regularly uses the term lesbian to make things simpler. I can tell you why I hate the phrase monosexual- it feels transphobic to me- I am not attracted to men at all, but I am attracted to women, non-binary folks, gender queer folks, and agender folks. If I was with a partner and they transitioned to be a man I would still love them. That wouldn’t change. Sexuality is fluid and calling someone monosexual seems to erase that and really put people in boxes. Everyone has exceptions. And as someone who has identified as bisexual and pansexual in the past and find those not to suit me and fit right (especially since I am not sexually/romantically attracted to people physically/based on appearances- it’s more about personality and what I could do with a person)

I don’t mean this in an antagonistic way, I really hope it doesn’t come off that way(I’m bad expressing myself sorry).

(I’m sorry, I know you’re not trying to be rude. My answer, however, will sound rude and upset because you touched upon some stuff that needs a lot of unpacking to me lmao. Just know this anger is not necessarily directed at you but at biphobia in general.)

Why do bisexual people may need to use the term monosexual?

A. It is descriptive

I see what you mean but as you said you're queer and lesbian is a term to make things simpler, right?

So I wouldnt call you monosexual because you’re clearly not attracted to only one gender (but if you want to who I am to stop you?). Monosexual is someone who is almost exclusively dating/is attracted to people of one gender. There are plenty trans people that are straight or gay that would NOT date a partner if they realized they were a different gender. For real: kat blaque made a video (here it is if youre interested) on youtube about this - she’s trans and she wants to date men and wouldnt feel comfortable on continuing dating if a partner of hers realized they were actually a trans woman all along. She wants to date guys not girls and that's FINE it just means A. She actually recognizes the girl gender, obviously B. She's straight af and that's wonderful! It’s not a box if that’s how her experience is and she likes it that way!

Also how is being monosexual transphobic? Cant a girl just like guys exclusively (both cis and trans) or like girls exclusively (both cis and trans)? It's not even enbyphobic since you dont need to be attracted to a person to support their rights. (Gay men arent attracted to women but can be 100% feminists.) Being open to fuck somebody is not the same as supporting their rights: fetishization is a thing. Again, I refer to the video Kat Blaque made.

Sexuality IS fluid but to some people (like me and you) it is more than others. Some people don’t feel comfortable dating people that dont fall into the gender theyre usually attracted to and thats 100% okay.

B. It helps in talking about biphobia and panphobia in society

Biphobia and panphobia are for the large part based on the assumption that you cant be attracted to more than one gender (not even non-binary and so on) and that if you do you're weird/disgusting/mentally ill/a sexual predator. I can tell you 100% that's the narrative both straight and gay people can and may perpetuate since I struggle w this kind of shit every single time Im attracted to someone no matter their gender (YES, EVEN IF THEY'RE A GUY, BECAUSE THE OTHER DAY I WAS ATTRACTED TO A GIRL AND NOW I FEEL LIKE A FUCKING ANIMAL THAT CANT CONTROL ITSELF, even though it makes NO sense because if it was two girls or two boys the actual number of people my hormones activated to wouldnt change, but it would make my experience not subjected to biphobia!). I’m not saying gay people are the same as straight people. But I do feel alienated BOTH from heteronormative society AND from (subtly biphobic) gay spaces because of my bisexuality. I costantly feel like I’m outside both of those worlds and you know how humans are: I just need a term to encompass it all easily, to say “I don’t identify with any of this” (which is both straight and strictly gay spaces: ie, monosexual). To me is literally the same as saying non-bisexual/non-pansexual.

I dont mean to say lesbians or gays have it easier or are just like straight people. But we do have different experiences and I need terms to express that. It honestly doesnt matter to me if you identify as lesbian or queer (though I think you’re implying you’re more queer than anything). But I do need a term to talk about how society at large treats sexuality; ie, as a monosexual thing. Another concept that’s been thrown around is bi erasure. A strictly monosexual society is bound to view a girl dating a girl (or girl presenting) as if theyre both LESBIANS and erase a queer person the moment they’re in a m/f relationship, because people cant COMPUTE that it may not be the case and that the girl dating a cis straight dude isnt betraying her queerness.To think so is basic biphobia.

In some ways, I think it’s the same as when transgender people started using the term cisgender - which is applicable to both straight people and queer/gay people. They simply needed a term which meant “not-trans” as they were saying “I dont identify with this” (ie the cisgender experience). Does it imply that cisgender people, no matter if queer, have something in common? Yeah, yeah it does. Does it imply that queer people are just the same as straight people, or face no oppression? Of course not. Seeing people being offended upon being called monosexual feels like people being offended upon being called cis to me.

Also, saying that the terms bisexual people use are transphobic is almost implying that bisexuality is inherently transphobic? Or reeks to me of that kind of rhetoric. I use the terms I need to use, just like any other marginilized group does, and nobody outside of that group has any right of denying me that. It’s like I’m trying to create a safe space for myself and people like me and yall come around to judge us YET AGAIN. And I'm just tired of hearing this bullshit. I could accept this kind of criticism only if it came from a trans person themselves, I guess? But it’s not usually trans people who accuse us of being transphobic, in fact, many trans people identify as bisexual and use bisexual terminology lmfao.

“Hearts not parts” rhetoric

Finally, about personality being superior to physical appearance. That's amazing but I do want to note that, not you necessarily, but many people who are into the “hearts not parts” rhetoric are, how can I say this. Slut-shaming people? I’m not sure if you are doing this but I feel it needs to be said just to be sure. A lesbian trans woman can be just attracted to a girl for her physical appearance and just want to fuck her - and THAT'S OKAY. That's fine. I am a sexually attracted to people and that doesnt mean I have to form a deep bond first. Sex positivity is about accepting that people can feel like this and not shame them for this. "Hearts not parts” rhetoric has in the past infantilized, sanitized or outright shamed other queer experiences. It's fine if you feel that way but dont start acting like you're morally superior because of that. That's catholicism with extra steps. My bisexuality its not the symptom of some predatory and animalistic thing that should be purified into something more palatable and less sexual. That’s the same thing they used to say about gay people and now gay (biphobic) people are using this against us. That’s also the kind of thing trans women (especially if they’re sapphic) constantly hear every fucking day. Queer people have a good part of their discrimination rooted in the shaming of purely sexual desires. Forcing ourselves to be more palatable and less sexual is just respectability politics. I’m tired of it. (This is obviously different from being on the asexual spectrum: but you dont see ace people going around pretending they’re morally superior than everybody else, and many are actually very sex positive)   You would still love your partner if they were a different gender: that’s great, but that’s not how some (most) people feel, and they aren’t superficial because of this, just different from you.

Also, I think you’d really benefit from hearing a trans person say they don’t care if someone has genitalia preferences. Here it is. This obviously doesnt mean that every trans person will feel like she does, but it does mean that we can’t generalize trans experiences/preferences/what they feel transphobia is. Just like straight people dont get to say what’s homophobic or not, cis people dont get to say what’s transphobic or not. The definition of those terms relies entirely on the community that is targeted by these things.

I hope this wasnt excessively confusing but I wanted to make my point clear.

[bitch-in-a-bag]

can we talk about how the LGBT movement has changed in the past 15 years?

in the light of the events surrounding Chris chan, and people prioritizing pronouns over the rape of a woman with dementia, I think it displays just how... different things are.

i personally feel like it's been co-opted by the more loud and entitled mtfs/ males/penis-havers/whatever pc term exists for the XY chromosome'd, who go too far and aren't reasonably kept in check. I think terf no longer has meaning anymore because it's just become a word we use to silence anyone that disagrees with a trans woman. immediately you're going to call me a terf, I accept that, but please continue reading. I may suprise you. calling someone who's transgender a terf is kinda messed up anyway, and that's exactly why im writing this.

I also think that everyone else (allies, ftms, etc) have followed suit because they've written this messed up narrative that EvErYoNe iS VaLiD. except for trans penis-havers, bc they're the most oppressed and the most valid, actually, regardless of their experiences.

I never used to believe the above because it was always written off as terf shit, and ignoring it kinda benefitted me, but between seeing ftms getting bashed for refusing to follow new "TME" rules as if they aren't trans too, and seeing outrage around Chris chans pronouns, I think it's time to start saying things that may make people uncomfortable. innocent people are already getting hurt by this, and we need to do better. it's time to get uncomfortable.

I want to remind you that perception is both the relying factor, and also the downfall of newer lgbt theory. if my profile were mtf coded, maybe it currently is, you'd call me a self hating trans and I wouldn't be that big of a deal. terfs would probably target me.

if my profile was ftm coded, I would be absolutely skewered for daring to speak out about these issues, even though they do actually affect ftms disproportionately. terfs would try to convince me that being trans is a plague and a mental illness, and to just ~be a cis woman~!

and if assumed cis, I would 100% be assumed radfem terf, and everything I say would immediately be dismissed because of the genuine damage terfs have done. but terfs would still probably flock to this post and berate me for daring to validate trans people At All, because to them, being transgender is a mental illness akin to an eating disorder, and "giving in" to it is "self harm". clearly I don't believe that, so hopefully you'll give me at least some benefit of the doubt.

so, does my identity matter? i have a feeling you'll say yes, because it gives us a good idea of experiences I do and don't have expertise in, and thus room to talk about. but I refuse to directly identify what I actually am because I want the focus of any resulting conversation to be my message and not my self identification. if you read between the lines and figure it out that's just fine, but I would like to be heard first and foremost.

my profile is thus an attempt at being cis female coded, somewhat out of comfort, and that is likely what I'll be assumed to be due to the beliefs I am expressing, even though there is a substantial risk of getting misgendered and dismissed, no matter what my birth sex may actually be. i will give you a hint about my identity: I am transgender, on HRT and everything, and I have been personally affected by all of this. rest assured, this is well within my lane to speak about, and it does matter if you misgender me.

I want you to really think about that. before you respond, really think about if someone saying words on tumblr, talking about their OWN experiences and their take on recent history that applies to themself, really more worthy of being misgendered and harassed than... someone who said they transitioned so they could date lesbians, and then raped their own mother with dementia.

is that fair or just? or is this just a new way of letting people with penises do whatever they want? I personally think it's the latter. we need to hold people like Chris chan accountable without getting caught up on something as minor **in comparison** as misgendering and self identification. Is it sad and confusing that someone who self IDs as transgender became 1:1 with the most dangerous stereotypes that exist for trans women? Of course it is. But it doesn't mean that self identification is suddenly more important than a literal crime being committed.

I would normally dismiss it as a fluke or outright trolling if the evidence weren't so damning that this is in fact a real event that happened. If I hadn't seen this happen to other people, and if I didn't literally know another mtf person who used their dysphoria as an excuse for date rape on multiple occasions and never got any consequences for it.

It's not a one time thing, it's a developing problem that we need to stop before more people have their lives ruined. I can't even imagine how traumatizing and messed up it is for an FTM person to be date raped, by another transgender person no less. When I, an abuse survivor, told people of this MTFs red flags, people violently silenced me. People who didn't know I was trans called me a terf and transphobic. We, as a community, could've protected someone from getting date raped, and we didn't. Trans women can be awful, horrible fucking people, because they are people. Protecting them at all costs is wrong. Protecting them from transphobia is what we should be doing.

That being said, misgendering is still skeevy, and I haven't done anything like raped a disabled woman who is no longer able to consent, or date raped my own partner. if you give a shit about respecting my identity, please use they/them for me. if not, use visual perception and make assumptions that will most likely be incorrect, skew your own argument, and put me on the same level as a rapist, and arguably a fetishist. And I do need to remind you that calling someone transgender a rapist and a fetishist without evidence is still definitely classic transphobia, to the letter, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.

as someone who is same sex attracted, I also want to bring this up as well.

in the US in the past 15 years, the movement as a whole pretty much went "YEAH BORN THIS WAY" with Lady Gaga, and then jumped ship to prioritize mostly mtfs at every angle. do mtfs need support? absolutely. but they don't need misguided toxic positivity, and that's what it's turned into.

it's gotten genuinely homophobic to the point where actually homosexual people are constantly being erased and demonized via "genital preferences are a fetish uwu", and vulva havers, especially the trans ones, are constantly being told to shut up about their experiences.

as much as you want to deny bioessentialism, its still very much well and alive with newer trans movement sentiments when we classify ftms as not worthy of speaking about their own issues with terms like "TME". it's also incredibly ignorant towards FTMs who pass, but dress feminine for comfort, and get mistaken for MTF, and treated like garbage because of it. They are not remotely exempt from misogyny, transphobia, or the intersection of the two, and it is not anyone's job to tell them they don't ever experience that when they do. Turning ftms and biological homosexuals into our enemies-- especially when the actual cause is transphobia and harmful gender stereotypes-- does nothing good or healthy for our movement.

Dont be mistaken, though, passing isn't the focus or end all be all here, it's the perception of others that ends up drastically effecting your experiences. There are words like misogyny that imply treatment via birth sex, however this too can be reliant on external perception. If an MTF individual either transitions very young, has an abundance of resources to transition, or just gets lucky and passes well, chances are she will experience a lot more misogyny than people may give credit to. inversely, someone who just started questioning yesterday, but lived as a male their whole life up until then, they genuinely cannot speak about misogyny with that much room because they simply haven't experienced it at an accurate enough angle or for enough time to understand it as a repeated and sociological force.

It works the other way as well, though; someone who's known that they're trans for a long time and haven't had the resources to transition, or do not or cannot pass in the eyes of society; these people suffer pain that we don't neccesarily have a word for yet, imo. It makes dysphoria worse and it makes living seem hopeless. And as a community, we deal with this is in a really messed up way by over-validating them instead of solving the core issue at hand. and people who suffer from this, but also acknowledge they can't claim what they haven't experienced, are left with nowhere to go.

And its important to acknowledge these things because they're integral to the over-encompassing trans experience. Instead of lying to everyone and telling everyone they pass/giving out unconditional positive regard, our focus should be making it so that it **doesn't matter if you pass**. that you're still worth respect and dignity if you're transgender, no matter what passing is or what it means to you, and no matter how you present. But also, if you do something awful, you still need to be held accountable, especially if you use yourself, your body, or your trans status to contribute to other axi of oppression.

Transphobia is a word that encompasses and addresses all of that, regardless of birth sex. "TME" shuts that down in favor of only letting MTF's speak. Which is still very bio-essentialist, and I can't help but feel like we've gone full circle.

Once upon a time you couldn't even get married if your partner had the same genitals as you. in the US, this was less than 7 years ago. and if you care about human rights activism, you know damn well that legal modification is not the end all be all. people who are genuinely homosexual are still oppressed, but the trans movement has started stepping on them to make ground we don't deserve. homosexuals are ok and valid. it's not a genital preference, and the prescence of trans people doesn't make conversion therapy sentiments ok, ever.

we've gone full circle, and it's not right.

[saucerfulofsins]

Starting with @softgrantaire’s post yesterday, I have been seeing a lot of discussion surrounding the place of trans people in hockey fandom on Tumblr. Parts of his original post and the discussion emanating from it is undeniably necessary, and I do think that continuing the discussion on better representation benefits everybody in fandom. However, to me, some of the assumptions made are troublesome. I have spent a long time thinking on this, I have discussed this with some friends, and I do not think I can stay quiet because I really, really think that this discussion has become very black/white while nuance is 100% necessary in this case. I am also not seeking to attack anybody—feelings of discomfort are entirely valid and I will never say something else. However, if we are talking about being critical of fandom, I do think it is important to start with ourselves and look at where our discomfort comes from rather than only holding other people accountable.

To start, I need to address the persistent use of “terf.” Terf does not mean “excluding trans people from any given space,” which is how I currently see it being used. Terf means “trans-exclusionary radical feminist,” and denotates a specific kind of transphobia that seeks to claim trans men are women, and trans women are men.  Subsequently, they feel that trans women have no space in female spaces (e.g. they believe trans women should use men’s bathrooms). A terf would thus never say that a trans man does not belong in a female space, because a terf believes that trans men are women and therefore do belong there.

In fact, I have not seen anybody deny that trans men exist. In the discussion trans men are treated as men—which is only valid, given the fact that they are. A trans man has no reason to demand different rights from a female community than a cis man (I will get back to this later). A trans man (who in this context is someone who fills a male societal role/passes) has the same societal privileges a cis man does. This is inherent to being male.

This is also one of my main issues with the initial post: “trans men” are persistently differentiated from “men.” The demand is not to promote equality, it is a call for women to allow trans men into their space. And yes, I understand that transgender men are marginalized—but so are BIPOC men, and so are gay men, and so are disabled men. So if you are striving for equality on that level, wording is certainly something to consider—because currently, the argument, to me, sounds like “trans men are different from cis men” when to many FtM, a large part of being transgender is not wanting to be differentiated. In fact, the women who want a safe space for themselves on Tumblr don’t exclude trans men because they are trans, they exclude trans men because they are men.

The trans/men differentiation seems to promote misunderstanding and a black-and-white thinking: either trans/men are accepted in fandom, or they are not. A fandom is safe to all, or it is not. A fandom caters to all, or it does not. That is not how a fandom works, however—and it never has.

This leads me on to my second major point: Both the initial post and subsequent responses discuss “hockeyblr” as a single community when in fact it comprises many different people with many different interests and reasons. To give some examples: they support different teams and/or players, they do not ship or they ship player/player and/or player/self-insert, they primarily focus on the fandom side or on the hockey side, and so forth.

Thus. Can fandom-as-whole be more inclusive? Absolutely. Is it good to reflect on why you make the choices you make (e.g. someone writing skinny white cis female self-inserts as opposed to including BIPOC, different bodies and different genders; someone writing male/male; someone writing mpreg or genderswap). At the same time, however, I think it is so fucking important to primarily keep toxic hockey culture accountable for your discomfort. Both trans and female fans’ primary discomfort germinates from that, not from interaction with each other. But trans discomfort and female discomfort are not the same, particularly if we are discussing trans men.

Subsequently—I believe that it is okay if someone wants to run a blog that does seek a female audience and does revolve around that. Women do deserve a safe space; if they wish to keep to a corner of the fandom which is female-only, there is no reason for men to demand access to that side of fandom. Different groups can exist side-by-side. Not everything is for everybody.

I also think that men who wish to see more inclusivity in fic need to reflect on why women need to write more gnc/nb/transgender fic. I do not think this is transphobic; it has nothing to do with a “dislike of or prejudice against transgender people.” There is no inherent negative attitude, merely a group of women writing what they want to read. And subsequently, for me, this maps onto the general fandom rule of “if you want to read it, and it doesn’t exist, write it yourself.” This is even more true if you discuss something as complex as gender identity; while it may be possible to write a fic not entirely focused on gender, gender is often still a big part of a romantic relationship and it (unfortunately) certainly is a large part in how society treats different people. Moreover, this would have been a different argument if people were writing for money and refusing to write transgender characters for no good reason, but the vast majority (if not all) of hockeyblr’s writers do so for free, in their spare time, for their own fun.

So absolutely, yes, educate people on trans experiences. Yes, make people aware that there are more experiences beside cis female/male or cis male/male. Discuss the issues of representation that exist within fic, whether that is self-insert or mlm, whether it is gender-related or ethnicity-related or anything else. And absolutely, yes, acting like all of hockey Tumblr is female-only is shitty as all fuck because it most certainly is not, and there is absolutely ZERO need for it to be: any and all people whose interests fit with the fandom should feel welcome in the fandom-at-large regardless of gender, sexuality, or amount of societal oppression they face, and be supported in these aspects. At the same time, however, there is no true reason for anybody to demand that all of the fandom is safe to them, particularly if we are discussing gender; women who want to hockey blogs for only a female audience should be free to do so, the same way someone who wants to only discuss two players being gay for each other should be.

Anyway. Please accept and respect each other. Fandom is perceived shittily enough as it is; to talk and discuss these matters is of vital importance, but please also respect peoples’ individual wishes  and needs when Tumblr is large enough for all of us to exist, find our communities within hockeyblr, and be happy.

[fourdaysofrain]

Self-Made Man

Summary: A Trans!Tony Stark AU. 

(Lengthy, personal author’s note below the cut, if you’re interested.)

Natasha Marie Stark was born twelve minutes before midnight on May 29th, 1970. She weighed a healthy seven pounds and two ounces when she arrived. She was the most beautiful thing that either of her parents had ever seen. And she was screaming loud enough to scare the pigeons from the trees outside.

Read on AO3

Well, hey everyone. It’s been a handful of months since I’ve been on here. I want to apologize for being gone, but that feels kind of phony. I don’t know. I missed this, though. I can tell you that much. I still checked my notifications every once in a while. It made me really glad to see people still commenting on my fics or passing my links around. Love y’all. 

I guess it’s about time that I tell you that I’m trans. I have been this whole time. To answer a few quick questions, I first knew sometime in late high school, but it was always kind of in the background my whole life, I just didn’t know how to isolate the feeling. I started socially transitioning (i.e. dressing male, coming out, going by he/him) after my high school graduation, and I started HRT (Horomone replacement therapy, that means I inject myself with testosterone weekly. .33mL subcutaneously into my tummy, if you’re curious) on Oct. 12, 2018. So it’s been almost two years since, and I’ve been completely passing as a man for quite a while. Ass-crack hair, sweat, and all. 

This is a pretty personal fic for me, given the nature of it. I’ve wanted to write it for a long time, and I’ve actually had words in the Google Doc since January. It took a lot of long nights to write. It helped that I was back home. I always have an easier time tapping into Trans Emotions when I’m in my home town, for better or for worse. All the memories and relationships I formed pre-transition follow me like ghosts. 

I’m leaving for college in two days, conversationally. 

I see a lot of trans!Peter Parker fics. I’m not dissing them, I love them to bits. But it makes me wonder why fandom is so quick to headcanon Peter as trans instead of one of the other characters. He’s petite, has a higher voice, and has softer features than the other male cast members. I feel like those attributes definitely play a role. It can be easy to see trans men as “uwu soft bois”, or as Men Lite, or as a more palatable version of “normal” (that is to say, cis) men. Those ideas are often flawed and based on transphobic foundations. The reality is, trans men (and by extension, all trans people) have the ability to be indiscernible from their cis counterparts. Everyone likes to think they can pick trans people out from a crowd, but you’d be surprised how quickly I started being read as male. Androcentrism for the win, I guess. 

I won’t be entirely pessimistic. I understand that people my age project onto Peter (I am by no means exempt from that), and that there’s a greater number of young trans people than old, due to a series of depressing reasons. But I still wanted to try a different take on a trans character. 

My experience as a trans man is vastly different than the one I write about here. If anything, I’m closer to fandom’s idea of trans!Peter. My parents were accepting, I had the financial and social means to transition relatively early, and I can fly under the radar easily. The most important difference is the time period. 

I don’t know a lot about the trans experience of the 80s and 90s, which is what Tony would have gone through. I know of one single trans man who began his transition back then, one of the gender studies professors at my university. Even then, he’s from Canada, which I’m assuming has an entirely different culture around trans lives. There aren’t many older trans men. It’s depressing. There’s a lot of reasons for this. I don’t want to get too deep into them, because it only makes me feel sad. The final scene in this fic is extremely self-indulgent with regards to this. I wrote what I needed to hear. 

That’s not to say I don’t relate at all to what I wrote. There are themes that are almost universal for the trans experience. I hope you can parse those out here.

I also wanted to talk about how I showed the change from “Natasha” to Tony. In the early stages of this fic’s development, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to openly say Tony’s deadname (the name trans people are given at birth, and often, but not 100% of the time, change as a part of their transition), but I soon realized that it would make the story much clearer with the inclusion of it. If you’re wondering, I got the name from Earth-3490, where Tony is born a woman (and marries Steve, lol). I chose to show the change between the two with the use of past tense for the first half of the fic, and switching to present for Tony’s life. Often times, it feels like that when you transition. You start living in present tense. 

I also want to make it clear that transitioning isn’t as simple as shown here. From the beginning of mapping out this fic, I was stressed about “Oh, how will he be able to graduate as Tony if he doesn’t start transitioning until after he gets to college,” and “How will Howard react to him coming out?” and “How will he have a playboy persona if he isn’t able to have sex with someone without them knowing?” and a zillion other ideas. It was very freeing for me to let go of some of these obstacles and leave it up to the reader to decide. I alluded to some of the solutions that I came up with, but for the most part, I glossed over the paperwork and bureaucracy aspect to transitioning. But in real life, there are countless red tapes you have to cut for even the simplest of actions. I went to the state court to change my name and sex in March of 2019, and I still have cards in my wallet with my deadname. I had a consult with a plastic surgeon for top surgery (the colloquial name for the double mastectomy that trans men often go through to masculinize their chests. If you’re wondering, genital reconstruction surgery is normally called bottom surgery to mirror this) last December, and I still don’t have a date set. It took me a few months to start T, and I only got it so easily because I went through my unviersity, which does informed consent. Some places have to have proof of 6 months of social transitioning and a letter from a therapist. There is a lot of medical gate keeping in the trans community. I don’t know what I would have done had my parents not been accepting enough to help me through the processes. I am extremely thankful for their support. 

But it’s a lot easier to write about transition happening smoothly. Money helps, which I don’t touch on a lot in this fic, but oh my God, does money help. I’m lucky enough to be able to afford my ~$20 a month T prescription (which I will be taking until the end of my days, likely), and I’m in the process of saving for top surgery. Thankfully with Tony, I can just presto most of the problems away because he’s canonically a billionaire. Eat the rich, folks.

There’s also the intersection with race that is very impactful for trans people, as it is for everyone. Both Tony and I are white, which gives us societal privileges that trans people of color don’t have access to. As well as the fact that transitioning from female to male is a much different experience than transitioning from male to female. We don’t experience trans misogyny, which is a special kind of misogyny specifically related to trans women. (Think of old sitcoms where the joke is that it’s a man dressed in women’s clothing, and that’s what makes it funny. That’s a fairly tame example of trans misogyny. It gets ugly fast.) 

I’m veering dangerously off-topic, but it’s important to talk about. It’s easy for white trans people (and LGBT people as a whole, I suppose) to distance themselves from talking about white privilege or male privilege because they aren’t straight and/or cis. But it’s important to recognize that while we may face unique oppression, we also still benefit from historical white supremacist and patriarchal structures present today in society. 

Sorry, not sorry for getting political. And if I haven’t said it on here, Black lives matter. Of course. 

If you end up having trans-related questions, I want to be a resource for you. Seriously, I’m narcissistic and love talking about myself I don’t mind helping you understand the trans experience. I can’t promise that I know everything, but I also have my own group of trans friends who might know what I don’t, and we can learn together. 

Again, love y’all. Thank you for the continued support you give me. I can’t promise that I’ll go back to my normal level of activity on here, but I might dip my feet back in the pool. <3

[newcatwords]

who i mean when i talk about the white man

the beauty of the agent smith character from the matrix is that he can inhabit anyone, meaning that anyone can become him.

this is one of the ways i think about the white man.

usually, though, when i talk about The Man, i mean the high level operatives of the state & industry...judges, gatekeepers, bosses. but it also includes the more anonymous enforcers: cops, soldiers, etc... these are people who can bring the hammer of the state down on you if they so choose. they have chosen to become the hand of the state..the mouth of the state..acting on its behalf, doing its work, etc.

is america the white man’s state?

well it was founded by 100% white men:

it was founded for white men. it was not for white women (who couldn’t vote, etc.) or black people (who were enslaved, 3/5ths of a person). it was not for the people who were already living where these men were trying to form their country: native people weren’t even allowed to become citizens of USA until 1924.

you can argue that the white men who ran this place (and who started institutions like the major universities, etc.) have gradually let other people in - women, black people, jews, immigrants, etc. but the rules & values of the american government, of major universities, of news organizations, etc., are in almost all instances the rules & values of those original white people & the white people that have been running those places ever since.

even things like tech products (like this website!) that are meant to be for anyone to use, where technically anyone can work, are the white man’s tech..primarily built & founded by white men..primarily in the white, western tradition of high tech. almost every discipline you can get a degree in (like computer science) was invented & founded by white men working within universities run by white men. this is the most basic sense in which i mean these instutions belong to the white man. he founded them. they are his creations. he continues to create them - publishing the news, keeping the university running, keeping the government running.

you may want to become a part of those institutions - to be in government, to work for a major tech company, to be a cop or a teacher, to be recognized in the art or business world, to get tenure at a major university, etc. ..which is your business and you do you. right now i am writing in the white man’s language (english), using his technology (a computer, the internet, this website), and i, too, try to get my hands on his money (dollars) if at all possible lol.

not all white men are agents of the white man’s state, but most of them (especially if they’re straight and/or christian) can become a part of it. all of them benefit from it (you’re just not as likely to get killed by a cop during a traffic stop if you’re white. this is just reality.). 

almost anyone (with the right papers, with the right skin color) can become The Man...when you as a white person call the cops on a black person, in that moment, you are The Man. when you as a white person try to police someone else’s behavior..or question whether they are in the right place etc...in that moment, you are The Man. if you’re gatekeeping your favorite hobby or industry, in that moment, you are The Man. that’s the beauty of the agent smith character in the matrix - agent smith can execute the full power of the state (ie, visit death on you) and anyone can become him.

it’s much harder (in many cases impossible) for certain “others” to enter various parts of the white man’s world. but it’s possible! look at your black & women cops. look at your colin powells and condoleezza rices..look at all the queer people who are allowed to rise to the top. which is why i think of being The Man as a condition, not as something essential about who you are. of course some people really are The Man on the inside lol - they were born into it or have adopted it or really think they know better and can’t see any other way. waddaya gonna do.

many white people especially are confused about the things that make up white culture. it’s especially difficult to understand because part of white culture is insisting that its culture & ways are universal. so every time you’ve heard a white man say “this is human nature” or “all people do this”, that in itself is white culture. white culture claims to be a neutral culture and a universal culture. but the more you learn, the more you discover that things you might have thought were neutral or universal are actually historically, geographically, & culturally specific to whites/westerners..they are things that were invented by whites/westerners.

here’s one example: many people think that some form of jail/prison/confinement of a person who did a bad thing is universal, or at least very common throughout time and in many parts of the world. but jails/prisons were invented in the west and in fact through much of the west’s history, these were not the main or preferred ways to punish people. michel foucault’s book “discipline & punish” is a good history of the invention of the prison.

when i say “a product of white culture” or "western culture”, the white reader might think “well i’m white and it’s not *my* culture.” that may be true! now imagine the whitest of the whites: your new england snobs, your english posh snobs, the good ole boys who run your town or state, your oppressive church leaders, an elected official who hates you & lies to you, a smug know-it-all educated technocrat (it might be you!), a karen, a cop, the trumpists, the polite skeptic liberals who are always telling you to temper your expectations, the shmucks who make the sexist, dumb hollywood movies, alllll the gatekeepers... their culture, the way they do things, the things they value, that is white culture. it varies. the white conservative’s culture is not the same as the white liberal’s culture, but they do have some things in common, like wanting to keep america going. both of their cultures are white cultures.

these whites are the people who make the culture that so many of us have grown up in - not just those of us in the west. the white culture machine includes academia (which produces scientific knowledge, histories, & the social theories & policies that many reforms are based on), tv, movies, the music industry, the art world, fashion, wall street, the tech industry, the news, professional sports, the politicians & cops (that are so often the content of the news), schools, white churches, most philanthropies, and all kinds of national (& many international) interest groups (ngo’s, advocacy groups, etc.).

these are institutions that (like the US government) were founded primarily by white men and have been run primarily by white men since their founding. they have all the money. they have power - whether it’s commercial power, political power, power to shape the national conversation, power to define what is true (only western science can say what’s true, according to western science!), power to give you a job or take it away, etc.

if you want to be “at the top of your field”, you are almost always meant to strive to join one of these white institutions (mostly white mens’ institutions). you might say “well there’s nothing particularly white about them..it’s just a news company..or an ad company. they’re just doing business.” but when i say white in this context, i mean that the people who founded them were either 100% white or mostly white. the people who have always run them have been either all white or mostly white, and the people who run them now are either all white or mostly white. in this sense, they are the white man’s institutions.

it can be hard to understand that because they are often the national or otherwise “official” thing: national news, or the biggest national/international companies, the top national/international universities. they certainly sell themselves as “the official thing” because it doesn’t sound great to say “the official newspaper of the white man.” and they want to be the official thing. they want to be the top x in the world. that’s an important white, western value as well - wanting to be the thing for everyone. the UN was not the dream of all peoples. it was the dream of some specific white, western people who created it.

here in america, a white man’s state, we grow up in that state’s schools, learning the history it wants us to learn. we watch its tv and listen to its music. we read its news and use its tech. we & our ideas..many of the things we think are true..many of the things we value..have been installed in us by that state and its various mouths (the ones who teach its desired history, tell you how you should look, what you should want out of life, what you should buy):

(above graphic from the movie “they live” (1988))

but we do all have a choice about which aspects of the white man’s culture we choose to adopt..we have choices about which of his values (progress, superiority of humans over nature & animals) we adopt..choices about which books we read & which movies we watch. is the matrix white man’s media? it used to be, but the wachowskis left the club ;). now it’s white trans women’s media :}

one final thing: is everything that white men do or think part of the white man’s culture? are all white men The Man? i hope that this post has made clear that i think the answer to both questions is “no”. i hope i’ve also made clear that non-whites and non-cis-het-men can very much be The Man or agents of The Man at times, or even their whole life. i’m not saying that it’s necessarily bad or necessarily good here, i just want us all to be honest with ourselves about who we are & whose work we’re doing.

a related question: if you start a club and you’re a white man, is it the white man’s club? i think it depends..it might be. do you work within the white, western tradition? do you accept its assumptions (capitalism is good, meritocracy is real, etc.)? do you further its culture? do you support its work? do you subvert it (by insisting that the club & its ways & rules are co-created with women, POC, etc., as real equal co-founders, for example)? do you use your position as someone the cops might believe, or someone the manager might listen to, to get your way & get what you want? ..to get someone else out of the way when you want? you might be The Man!

we can debate specifics - whether industry x or person y or instution z or cultural value n is white, but for me it comes down to this: was the value/government/institution founded by whites/westerners? has it been run & carried forward by whites/westerners? you can also ask whether it primarily benefits whites/westerners (who are allowed to rise to high positions or allowed to not be as likely to be killed by the cops, etc.) and whether it promotes the values/goals of The White Man. if a judge, a cop, an elected official, a principal, a high level church leader, a university president, and a corporate leader can all agree on it, then in my book, it promotes the values/goals of The White Man. an example of values that might fit this bill include an agreement that we should not try to dismantle america, for example. that one should work within the system...that industrialism is the way to go...etc.. primarily these are pro-establishment values. and “the establishment” is another way that i think many people talk about the white man’s culture & institutions.

anyway, this post has gone quite long. thank you for staying with me till the end. i hope it’s provided at least a rough sketch of what i mean when i talk about the white man or The Man and i hope it’s given you something to think about. i apologize for not going into the history of the usage of “The White Man” or “The Man”..i started writing this on a whim & haven’t done a historical dive. please forgive me for that. thank you.

[asynca]

Auntie, I apologize for the discourse that this will bring beforehand. But my current thinking is lgbt(any of those, nonbinary too) aces deserve support and respect and are included. It feels wrong to include heterosexual aces because I see it as they have more privilege. I’m open to understanding better but I’m afraid to talk to someone about it in fear of being called aphobic or yelled at for not being 100% accepting. I just wanna understand better so I can be accepting.

I’m glad you want to be accepting. I hope this post will send you on a journey of your own private research towards understanding asexuality and oppression. 

I have written & shared multiple posts on this. [ Some stats on ace oppression ] [ My own experiences with asexuality ] [ about compulsory sexuality ] [evidence of rampant acephobia ] and if you read through my #asexuality tag there’s loads more.

So there’s two things I’ll address here. 

1. You can’t possibly know what someone’s oppression feels like if you haven’t experienced it. So I’d ask you to step aside from thinking that you, yourself, who isn’t someone who’s heteroromanic asexual, is in a position to judge whether or not someone who is that identity is oppressed. You can’t know. You don’t experience it. That’s like asking a bunch of cis men to decide if sexism is real. They’ll have opinions, but they haven’t experienced it so they aren’t the right people to answer that question. 

2.  Membership to the queer community doesn’t examine your level of disadvantage. If it did, the only people in the community would be poor and disabled trans women of colour, because they are likely to be the most structurally disadvantaged. However, folks who aren’t that level of oppressed are still welcome in the queer community because we’re a mixed bag of similar and related oppressions. 

Furthermore, oppression differs even between people of the same identity. A lesbian born to accepting parents in an accepting country is going to feel less impacted and restricted by her sexuality than a lesbian born to bigoted parents in a country where homosexuality is illegal. So making a statement like ‘all x are more oppressed than y’ is problematic anyway. Your level of oppression re: your sexuality or gender will be based on a lot more than just your label. 

We don’t have, like, a measuring stick taped to the queer community door with ‘you must be THIS oppressed to enter’ and a line indicating your relative level of oppression. All you have to be is intersex AND/OR not cisgender AND heterosexual AND heteroromantic.

So even if, according to your initial logic, a heteroromantic asexual personal WAS less oppressed than you (and you can never know if that is the case), they still experience isolation and oppression, and they can still benefit from the queer community and be valuable members of it. 

However, I will just point out that research actually shows that asexual people of all genders and romantic identities experience more harassment and sexual assault than other members of the wider community. So I’d very strongly caution you in assuming a heteroromantic asexual person experiences less oppression than you. That’s an ill-informed assumption you need to challenge in yourself. 

ETA: I’m still super concerned we’re building a community based on suffering, though. ‘You must have suffered THIS much and be able to prove it with citations’. Like. Can’t we just be happy that we’ve figured out who we are and found somewhere full of similar people? Do we need to suffer before we’re allowed in??? UGH. 

[hakuteeth]

Harry Styles and the Concept of Gender

I have a lot of thoughts and I wanted a place to lay them all out so I’m sorry this is gonna be probably indecipherable but disclaimer I’m not saying harry is a gender he’s not this is just really exploring the concept of freedom with or without gender and expression of oneself thru clothes not so much about identity but the wider concept of the binary based around my own interpretations of it. A femme take on femininity thru a white man’s exploration of gender if u will so if u dont like that i dont care

also.... ive never taken a queer studies class but I love sociology so..... all these connections I make are from my own knowledge and arent meant to box harry in...

Gender defined from a sociological standpoint is based around how we behave and what actions we are expected to perform and for the most part a little give and take people can stick within this binary as it can be safe and comfortable and black and white. What’s interesting is when people step outside the norm and are more willing to explore that grey area that most people simply dont understand. This is interesting because it extends beyond clothing or makeup as most people don’t realize a man wearing makeup does not subvert gender because the gender binary is also inherently shackled to the concept of heteronormativity just as a woman completes a man, the soft counterpart to his masculine ways. 

Harry Styles and the concept of gender started for me with a dress. It never quite occurred to me that harry would wear a dress and reading the rolling stone article that harry had worn or would ever wear something quite as feminine as that. I think for a lot of people solo Harry Styles was a strange and beautiful uncharted territory of course many people came to suspect the new age rock n roll harry had to usher in but what’s fun is not so much deconstructing Harry as a soft rockstar but the idea that Harry has a femininity to him something I never saw until I noticed it everywhere in his clothing and even more interesting his actions.

The most interesting thing is Harry doesn’t quite believe in a gender binary when it comes to fashion possibly attributed to Alessandro Michele’s take on gender or perhaps the work of a really good stylist but I think if anything Harry also believes in that mission that gender could be redefined within the confines of fashion.

Harris Reed described his vision and Harry ended up wearing five different looks on his world tour introducing a student and relatively unknown LGBT designer to the masses and Harris has went on to say that Harry completely understood the connection clothing gender and sexuality have all shared since the dawn of fabric and it’s interesting when one also thinks about the time and effort this collaboration took considering Harris designed all these looks himself over a very short period of time. Harry wasn’t looking for somebody to dress him as what we normally see male popstars wear onstage, he was looking for a risk.

Gender like most things is more complicated than somebody might think. It extends beyond putting on a funky print before leaving the house it’s about the mannerisms, the actions, the behavior of the individual and the overall societal imprint. And Harry’s always been a bit softer than most. He’s always displayed his self as overwhelmingly kind to the point it makes my teeth hurt sometimes and he’s never overbearing. He’s quite quiet and subtle for somebody who can wear a loud pink custom gucci suit. 

Since 2013 he never shied away from looking or being a bit more feminine and he’s always exuded this calming energy or at least I believe if he had an aura it would definitely be soft pink. During his 2018 tour, every night he would tell fans that they were allowed to be whoever they wanted be in that room and it was all about fostering this environment where crying is manly and babies could choose their own gender  (which he said twice on tour). Also something that sticks out quite vividly is when a fan told him his mermaid has saggy boobs and he replied that everybody should love themselves. 

“We are men!” Then he prances away. That’s always how I picture Harry now him using his kilt to curtsey or him twirling like a ballerina on a football pitch. The concept of gender has extended more beyond fashion and into comfortability but also exploring what somebody may not be comfortable with at first but finding they quite like it. 

When men wear nail polish or when you gift your boyfriend flowers for valentines day. It all lies inside the confines of gender. Subverting gender doesnt mean men should wear makeup but it encompasses a vast majority of actions AND behavior or as I like to call it being a bit softer than most. Men have a tendency to bathe themselves in aggression and to assert their dominance and I’m not saying Harry can’t be masculine as well. One of his favorite hobbies is boxing but even then I’d argue that’s less about aggression and more about control and analytical power where taking down an opponent requires more than brute strength.

I believe there’s power in being feminine and there’s power in owning yourself, 100%, and what’s interesting is Harry is the one who taught me that. I think a lot of people see Harry as this mysterious figure and while he is more private than some people would like I also think he’s shown us a lot about himself and it all depends on us to draw our own conclusions. The thing is I don’t like Harry cause I think he subverts gender or I think he’s feminine. I like him cause he’s authentically himself without any concern for others and he’s different. I’m not a man I present as a woman so I’m subjected to an oppressive environment. I am wary at people who are unwilling to learn who are afraid of stepping outside the box ANY box and hold themselves so tight they can barely move. I see Harry as somebody who moves freely.

I could make an entire essay on Harry and the concept of heteronormativity but I’m going to stick with toeing the line on gender for right now but I do believe a lot can be said for cis heterosexuality and attending a harry styles concert. It felt a bit like a pride parade which was interesting how somebody who essentially had for years this show of heterosexuality somehow ended up being followed by lesbians and bisexual women as well as many gay and trans men fans. 

Well it’s not that hard to see. Harry’s concerts are more celebrations of being yourself and I’ve never seen Harry ever discourage that or shy away from defending his fans to him we are a group of strong men and women and girls are the future. Once again bringing the concept back to the gender binary, girls can do anything despite being told they are only good at some things.

I don’t think this vision of Harry is a product of fan pressure. I think Harry genuinely supports things like LGBT rights and I think he believes in it just as much as we do I can’t ever imagine him not doing so. He made pride merch and wasn’t getting a cent of it because it was all donated to an LGBT charity to benefit youth in schools. If we’re talking in the ways in which Harry explores gender the number 1 community for that has always been the LGBT community historically we tend to fuck around with the concept of gender so it’s not surprise to me that’s a community Harry advocates for. 

Harry’s solo career from the beginning has been about reinventing masculinity. He wore a women’s suit for his album photoshoot and bathed in flowers and pink lemonade for his album cover and though his album had some rock n roll tropes he’s never shied away from talking about women’s rights or lgbt rights. And even within One Direction Harry never felt like just another man to me. He’s somebody special. Not afraid of vulnerability, not afraid of being called gay, not afraid of expressing who he is thru clothing. 

To me it’s always felt like Harry wanted people to know this is who I am you can take me or leave me. Harry I feel is somebody willing to take risks putting himself in a dress in a booklet as tour merch. Saying we’re all a little bit gay on tour. Like moths to a flame outsiders are drawn to him at least I was. 

To me Harry Styles is carving out a place for himself in a world that can be very rigid. Harry isn’t following anybody’s path but his own setting out to reinvent rock n roll and always and forever being a bit softer than most. It’s an admirable trait in a world that has become quite scary as of late.