#conditional privilege

[hussyknee]

re conditional privilege:

whether it comes to race, ability, gender, sexuality or class, people are really hung up on this idea that ambiguity affords protection, which is the same as privilege. as though having camouflage means you aren't hunted.

only the oppressed are concerned with our own variation and degree of difference. there is no ambiguity in the eyes of the oppressor. the reality is that the oppressors don't care how like them you are. in fact, being like them is all the more reason to punish you and keep you in your place. the project of exclusion is not to force conformity, it's to find people to make an example of so that others try to buy safety by trying to obey the most cruel and arbitrary rules. the more people try to conform, the narrower the criteria becomes, the more they fail, the more can be punished. that is how systems of power propagate themselves, because power can only be retained by exercising it, by whichever rationales necessary.

i understand that "identity politics" is a word that's been weaponized by the right wing, but it's a legitimate criteria of criticism for the left. when something moves from self-definition and community to tribalism, policing and self-branding, it has become a project of neoliberal hyperindividualism. identity politics focuses on defining ourselves by the extent to which we are punished as individual groups and under what criteria, imagining a rational and restrained power matrix that metes out punishment according to the degree of difference and perceived threat. it imagines an oppressive power structure as a methodical, conscientious gardener pruning a rose bush, rather than a brutal machinery that has invented arbitrary rules to violently subjugate and systemically mass murder the lives it needs to sustain itself. instead of building a community around the fact that we're all being hunted by the same beasts, idpol would rather build a hierarchy of prey animals according to the ways we'll be skinned and cooked, stopping only short of putting us on a menu with accompanying prices.

i suppose when you define yourself according to the appetite of the thing that wants to eat you, you end up weirdly attached to the romance of being eaten, and hate to give it up.

[trans-androgyne]

Radical feminism cannot ever be trans-inclusive.

Why do I keep saying this? Because I have increasingly been seeing transmasc and transfem folks weaponize radical feminist ideas against each other and I am tired of it.

(TL;DR at the end, I know this is lengthy.)

So, what is radical feminism and how does it differ from other kinds of feminism? It’s the idea that patriarchy is the primary root oppression from which all other oppression spawns. It holds that the two primary classes are men/males and women/females, and that men are responsible for creating and maintaining all oppression, with women playing a more passive, secondary role. We're off to a bad start already; this is an inherently racist framework that absolves privileged women of their role in creating and upholding oppression, as the idea is that if women ran the world oppression would not exist. Intersectional feminism, on the other hand, understands the way many forms of oppression are rooted in racism, and that all systems of oppression are interconnected without having one singular root.

The way it functions and its prescribed remedies rely on the idea of a sisterhood--all women/females are connected with each other against men/males. The common belief is that males as the more powerful* class will always try to oppress women unless women band together against them and intervene. Men are framed as the enemy to be fought, not potential allies to be recruited into feminism.

Many of us have an idea of traditional cis radical feminism and how that leads to TERFism. But how does it function in the trans community? For radical feminism to work, a "sister" class oppressed by misogyny and an enemy class causing it must be identified. Radfem trans women will say that their identity as women means they experience the worst misogyny--trans men and mascs just get the weaker "misdirected" version, and in fact have a motive to uphold misogyny due to their identification with manhood*. Trans men are the enemy class that oppresses trans women. Radfem trans men will say that people afab are the real class that experiences the worst misogyny due to their ability to give birth*--while trans women and fems as people amab* are more aligned with cis men due to having received male privilege and been "socialized male" in addition to not having the same reproductive capabilities*. Trans women are the enemy class that oppresses trans men.

Both of these notions rely on painting groups of trans people as having access to patriarchal power they do not. They downplay the way misogyny functions in the lives of the perceived patriarchal class of trans people. It inherently ignores the real experiences of trans people and paints some of them as an enemy class; it cannot ever be truly inclusive of all trans people. Intersectional transfeminism would take into account the way misogyny functions in the oppression of all trans people, and analyze the material conditions of trans folks to reveal that no group of them is granted access to patriarchal power and cis male privilege. It means banding together as a unified trans community and understanding where our experiences are shared, as well as accounting for the way other systems of oppression critically shape the lives of trans people of color, disabled trans people, intersex trans people, and other groups.

*There are a lot of assumptions present in this analysis like the assumed agabs and reproductive abilities of trans men and women; these are not my beliefs but the oversimplifications espoused by the radfems I'm describing.

TL;DR: Radical feminism requires identifying one class as the patriarchal oppressors and the other as the oppressed victims. In the "trans-inclusive" version, this means downplaying the experiences with misogyny of either trans men and mascs or trans women and fems. It identifies either transmisogyny or "afabmisogyny" as the real root of all oppression, ignoring the voices and experiences of the most marginalized trans people. Truly inclusive transfeminism would unite all trans people against the patriarchy instead of falsely implicating us in it.

[radley-writes]

genuinely worries me that some of you think the biggest threat to feminism in 2024 is trans men having words to talk about their lived experience

[abhainnwhump]

Caretaker leaves little notes around the house to remind struggling Whumpee to do things like drink water, sleep eight hours, eat regularly, and bathe.

[abirddogmoment]

We're learning about grouse hunting together!

I was really undecided on whether I wanted to hunt with Rory for realsies because I don't have a shotgun and I don't really care to get a shotgun (I have a gun license from my time up north). I have a small air rifle and a tactical slingshot (both legal for hunting small game in my area) so I've been taking those for walks in hunting areas, along with all my permits and stuff, just to see what we see.

This grouse woods is in the same corner as my swamp, just a different part of the rec area. You can legally hunt small game during the open season with dogs with some restrictions (certain distance from the parking, some trails close for hunting on a rotational basis for maintenance, etc.) but it's not terribly popular so it's a really good area to learn. We are looking for ruffed grouse and rabbit, both of which are super common out here.

With pointing dogs like britts, you generally don't want to shoot any game unless they're pointing steady (*except when doing gun conditioning, but that's a specific training set up) - it makes sense because a shot bird is the ultimate reward and you want to make sure you're reinforcing the behaviour you want, which is usually a safe steady point. Rory isn't pointing steady yet so there's really not much for me to do on these walks besides reinforce good manners (recall, how far she ranges, etc.).

There's a really well known saying in pointing dogs, which is wild birds make bird dogs. Wild birds flush (fly away) much more reliably than farmed birds so the chances of a dog catching a wild bird is really minimal compared to farmed birds. It's super important to get young bird dogs on wild birds as much as possible so they learn all the important skills: how to navigate terrain, what habitat holds birds, what each bird species smells like, how far they can range, and most importantly, that they need a person to actually get a bird.

(Most of these skills can be taught with planted birds in training, but planted birds may be more habituated to people and dogs so they might not flush reliably. Once pointing dogs learn that they can catch birds themselves, it's much harder to foster a strong stop and point. You might see people using these tip ups, which protect the training bird from the dog. You'll often see training dogs on long lines (called check cords) or with a flank collar to reinforce not getting too close to the bird, but you have to phase those out quickly so the dog doesn't become dependent on them. You also have to be really careful with scent trails when setting up planted birds or you might end up with a dog that follows your scent instead of looking for birds organically. And of course, you have to train without birds sometimes so the dog doesn't get discouraged about not finding birds quickly because sometimes there just aren't birds out there. Lots to consider when setting up training!)

Anyway I've been trying to get Rory out on wild birds as much as possible (with the caveat that we don't run wild birds during nesting season) so we're wandering the grouse woods lately. My early recall training is really paying off because she's been super reliable in terms of good manners, it's wonderful to see!

We've been out four times (1-2 hours each) so far since the season opened. The first two times we're mostly just a pleasant walk in the woods, Rory didn't really know what we were doing so she was just vibing (THIS IS TOTALLY FINE, SHE'S NEW TO THIS). We had a couple chance grouse encounters and I could see the wheels turning, I encouraged her to sniff around where the grouse were sitting before they flew off and I watched her start to connect the dots.

(It's important to remember that dogs don't know what they're looking for until you show them. Most bird dogs are naturally birdy, but they don't know which birds are good and which birds are boring! You have to show them which birds you care about - this is easiest if you can run with an experienced hunting dog, but you can do it alone like I am by making a big deal about any interest in the "correct" birds.)

The last time we went out to the grouse woods, she did a couple of really nice whip-arounds when she caught scent she liked and followed scent off the trail I was walking! This is the behaviour I want to see so it was awesome to watch it start to click! She trailed a moose (don't want that, she found some moose pee to roll in so whatever), a pileated woodpecker (again, don't want that but it was cool to see), and two separate grouse. The first was on the wrong side of the fence so I couldn't do anything about it but she held a really nice point (the photo) and I gave her a ton of chicken and praise for it. The second was a quick point but it flushed really far away so there was no finding it again. Both birds weren't visible when she found them, they were true scent points and she was strategically looking for them so that was super cool!

She's still in heat and super sensitive right now so I wouldn't shoot over her anyway, but I'm getting pretty accurate with my slingshot so I'm hoping we can connect on something this fall - both for her pointing steady and me aiming properly. She gets more steady and more sure of herself every time we go out so it's only a matter of time!

[toytulini]

yall know women can also do misogyny, right? whether or not you say misogynistic shit, engage in misogynistic behavior, proliferate misogynistic policy and ideology, is not ACTUALLY dependent on YOUR gender, like, you know that, right? anyone is capable of enacting any bigotry, its just, some people may also be impacted by bigotry they perpetuate, some ppl may be more likely to know that they shouldnt engage in that shit, and be more likely to shut down that behavior where they have the power to do so? being a woman doesnt make you immune to perpetuating misogyny?

[lilacerull0]

the fact that this student went looking for me specifically to ask for advice and the fact that other first year students stopped to listen to me and thanked me for encouraging them instead of downplaying their importance...

[uncanny-tranny]

What people often confuse, I think, is the idea that you can have specific benefits in different situations, but that is not the same as having systemic privileges for whatever identity/presentation/assumed identity or presentation that was given benefits.

If you want an example of what I mean, I have experienced some better treatment as people have recognized me as male, but society doesn't offer me systemic benefit because I'm a trans man - my transness, even in a context of being seen or assumed as a man, is not granted to me. I'm not saying that I don't ever get treated better in certain instances where I am seen as a man (even if I'm seen as a cis man), what I am saying is that that is different than systemic privileges. I think that difference matters, since people see systemic benefits as indications that people don't need help, or even that those people need to be "taken down a peg." This viewpoint isn't conducive to helping people, if that's what your goal is.

I use myself as an example just so people aren't confused. This is a complex topic that is, fundamentally, intersectional. If the only voices being heard are one type, we will be coming away with a dangerously narrow view of how social benefits and societal privilege work.

[valentineish]

Something that gets referenced, but not fully understood in discussions of privilege is like. How dependent on legal family that shit is. Acting up in class is treated with additional suspicion and fear if you have an incarcerated or institutionalized parent. Disability resources assume you have family caring for you. You're only "white passing" until you're observed with your Black family. Childhood and young adult poverty are dismissed because the assumption is that family should be able to fill in the gaps.

Part of how things like whiteness and patriarchy and classism remain systemic is with dependence on legal familial units. One's place within these structures depends on who you are related to, and how you call upon them – if you can. This reinforcement exists both as punishment (E.G., "one-drop" law in the U.S.), and as reward (E.G., generational estate planning).

Importantly, this system relies on having legally bound family to call upon. That is the support upon which every other support network, benefit, and penalty is built upon. Since becoming an adult orphan, I cannot overstate how stark it becomes if you lack that pillar. Every one of these systems is built to grind up and discard the people without a family unit – without the right kin.

Particularly at this juncture in history, it is vital that people see this.

[daisywords]

rereading Fairest bc I have my own copy now (yay $2.50 at a used bookstore!) and so far it's as lovely as I remember

but anyway I do like how Aza's "ugliness" is characterized by people actually treating her badly because of it. People talk about the stereotype of YA protagonists being like "oh poor me I'm so ugly" in an attempt to make them relatable but the narrative actually treats them like they are gorgeous and every character that isn't a villain finds them attractive.

Vs. here it's like. yeah her self perception is all tied up in cultural ideas of beauty and she's definitely not objective either, and a lot of what she thinks is inherent to her ugliness is all wrapped up her related social anxiety, etc.

but! It's very refreshing to see a book that deals so much with beauty standards actually commit to it! It's not like she's just vain and obsessed with looks! You can tell she wants to be beautiful because she wants to be treated like a person! The way it is just that blatant! Most people are rude to her or ignore her! And she makes it worse in her head and compounds the problem by letting her own insecurity draw attention to herself, but at the end of the day, she's right! People would treat her better if she looked different!

The details that we get about her appearance are not even "ugly" traits, either! Like we get the pale skin, black hair, red lips combo pulled directly from the traditional Snow White fairy tale, where those traits are supposed to be beautiful and desirable! But in this culture, apparently those traits are a part of her ugliness, which just perfectly highlights how the beauty standards are inherently arbitrary! And yet! They affect her life in real ways! It doesn't matter much how we, the reader, picture her; we believe that she is ugly because people treat her like she is!

Anyway I especially love how her insecurity regarding her size is portrayed. The combo of feeling small and meek and timid on the outside but being large and imposing on the outside. She feels like she takes up too much space. She doesn't want to wear anything at all attention grabbing. She doesn't know what to do with her limbs. Her biggest fear about demonstrating her magical singing trick is that she would have to show people how she moves her stomach (the horror!)

anyway everyone ever should read Fairest. I could write 12.5 dissertations on it. fantasy books for 12-year-old girls are the most serious fiction in the world actually

[chronicsymptomsyndrome]

Friendly reminder…you don’t ever have to publicly specify the “self” part of self-diagnosed. if you don’t want to. because I know it can sometimes feel like a caveat that you’re obligated to disclose but the thing is, you’re not even obligated to disclose your diagnoses in the first place, much less the source. so you can just say diagnosed. if you prefer. to feel safe and avoid scrutiny or fake-claims or for any other reason. because it’s the truth, it’s not even a lie. self-diagnosed is diagnosed

[trans-androgyne]

The moment a transmasc person stops identifying as a girl their misogyny is no longer internalized but oppressive? Really? Or could you take one second to consider the situation might be more complex than that.

[xicanaroja]

I think its very telling of the liberal frame of mind that now that Trump has won again, there are multiple creators on tiktok teaching people how to migrate/leave the country. As if that's an option for everyone?? Like who is that advice for. The vast majority of us cannot afford to pick up and leave, find a residency in another country and jobs that can support ourselves/families, work through the citizenship process, and then get nationalized? It's an expensive process, most countries require either a parent born on the land or that you own land and live there for 5+ years, AND again, expensive as all shit??? Like what are we to do. We literally cant all leave. Many of us know people who wouldn't even be eligible to immigrate elsewhere, since some countries have Actual Health parameters you have to meet to migrate (see Australia not allowing diagnosed autistics to immigrate). Not to mention friends and family members who are immigrants working through the process here in the US still. That's not an option for most people. It's just giving white-liberal, one intersectionality per person vibes. Its stupid, and reductive.

[itspileofgoodthings]

Taylor returning over and over to the falling through the ice accident in the Bolter—everything to me

[cripplepunkfag]

god i wish i could stop fuckin thinking this i feel like such a dick i KNOW people with more obvious and more serious disabilities dont "have it better" but i cant stop thinking about it i just wish i could collapse dramatically and get rushed somewhere and magically diagnosed i feel like such a fuckin drama queen because i feel awful all the time but its just like dizziness and pain do i even have the right to claim im disabled? its not like im diagnosed. its not like i know whats wrong. its not like its serious. maybe i am just fuckin faking it.

[houdadraws]

Stick to your drawings. What else did you want Americans to do? Vote for nobody?? I'm queer in TX with my wife who is trans. Not everyone who voted blue support Harris.

I voted blue to save my wife. Fuck off.

Not everyone who voted blue support Harris but everyone who voted blue decided genocide was not a dealbreaker so *you* fuck off! And the entitlement to come on here and send me this, with that "queer" preface like that makes the rest ok? Like I don't expect you guys in the imperial core to actually care about what your privileges cost the rest of us but I do expect you to leave your self-centered bullshit out of my askbox