#contrapoints discourse

[jingerpi]

Its honestly very concerning how popular ContraPoints video on "Transtrenders" was. I want to make a post discecting it briefly because I feel the video does a disservice to young trans folk looking to learn, instead leaving them feeling unjustified in their indentitiy under the guise of some radical acceptance One of the main issues with the video as a whole is how natalie breaks down existing understandings of trans medicine as a tool to try and unseat transmedicalist talking points, and show how being trans is about personal experience and "feelings". While its important to critique transmedicalists, what she does here is undermine what many people see as the best justification for trans existence without replacing it with anything. She does this in my opinion, because she honestly doesn't have anything to replace it with, and doesn't understand the real basis for gender in the world. Saying this is all well and good, I can critique anyone for not giving good basis for thing but its no help if i don't give anything of substance to back it up either, so heres a brief explanation of why transphobia is a problem, based in actual socio-political analysis.

Patriarchy is an economic structure which has been built up across centuries of accumulated surplus value which was passed down through the eldest son of the ruling class. this is a vast over simplification, but functionally this means there are systems in place in society which privilege men, give them access to more wealth, better positions, and control over non-men. Patriarchy has grown and changed over time and held different shapes depending on the society, we no longer have eldest sons inheriting royal rule (in most places), but we continue to have men as the group with the most economic and social agency in our societies. This privilege that Patriarchs have is constituted not of some magical benefits bestowed upon them from an abstract "system" but are instead taken directly from those who are not men. More specifically, men and Patriarchs take labor and resources from those whom patriarchy considers "non-men". Reproductive labor goes unpaid, women are under privileged in political society, we often don't get choices over our bodies. This isn't merely a coincidence, but serves specifically to give men power and confer more benefits onto them. Because of this, there must be systems in place to manage who is let into the patriarchy, who can be a Patriarch.

The most universal way of doing this is by deciding whether or not someone is a man and conferring onto them certain benefits as long as they uphold this structure, and ostracizing them if they are not. They do this ostracization because if this structure is not upheld artificially through oppression of women and bullying of nonconforming men to keep the categories of man and woman or even man and non-man distinct, the privilege given to the in-group starts to fade. In the same way that "White" is an artificial construct created and upheld to facilitate racism like slavery, imperialism, housing discrimination, and unpaid labor, so too is "manhood" and "womanhood". These constructs appear to be based in existing biology, so they often go without question, but race is also based on such "biology" and that does not mean its a founded construct. The basis for both "race" and "gender" break down once you look at higher level understandings of these concepts. Not all people with xy chromosomes are men, not all people of African decent have black skin, etc etc... I could go on about the "exceptions" for quite some time but you likely know many of them already. These are categories created fundamentally to give one specific category an economic advantage and justify their oppression of those who are outside of said category. The reason we need to respect trans-ness isn't because there is something inherently justified about being transgender, nor because we just have to be really nice to everyone and treat their feelings as absolute truths. Its because the systems which confine us and define gender so rigidly exist purely to oppress and extract value from others. These borders are deeply unjustified and we need to tear them away. We do not need to justify existing outside of the borders, but instead challenge the borders in the first place. Contrapoints fails to meaningfully do this Natalie focuses almost entirely on the arguments surrounding justifications for transness and gives little thought to the justifications for patriarchy. It is treated as a default, always existing, status quo that is unquestionable. It makes me wonder how aware of it she really is, she seems to get stuck in justifying her own existence. the "Transtrenders" video focuses on a discussion between several characters where the primary issue at hand is how to justify being trans, should it be done through medicial, scientific frameworks? or should it be done from a kind and accepting view of others? She makes arguments against the former for being flawed and the latter for being unfounded, but she never actually replaces it with any critique of society, instead saying: "Okay, so what am I supposed to tell Jackie Jackson then? What am I supposed to tell the TERFs? That I'm a woman because reasons?"

"No, not even because reasons. Just because you are."

"So it's what, a leap of faith? Oh great. I'm sure that's gonna convince all the rational skeptics. Justine, it makes us sound completely delusional."

"Well Tiffany, delusion is what separates us from the animals." Which is an extremely unhelpful answer to give after tearing down what is to many, a key aspect in their reasoning for why they are justified in their identities, and while it is partially correct that trying to use one of the specific theories she outlined earlier to justify trans existence is an exercise in futility, she can't seemingly offer any alternative than some kind of "because I said so" when there ARE very good reasons to be in favor of trans acceptance, and historical reasons for our existence. In failing to do so she misleads perhaps an entire generation of trans people into thinking theres no real justification for their existence

The justification comes from understanding that the premise is false, that the forces which try to bind people to a specific societal gender role are themselves the issue.

She tries to point out that we dont need to justify transgender existence because the frameworks which hold us to cisgender existence are the real problem, but without ever talking about these cisgender standards in an actually meaningful way, instead talking abstactly about societies "expectations" or whatnot, where she should could be attacking the real economic forces of patriarchy. She should be tearing down patriarchy first and then using that to liberate trans existence but instead she tears down trans existence without touching patriarchy or any of the coercion or exploitation that arise from it. I consider this a great tragedy, and a prime example of her failures as an educator.

[derseprinceoftbd]

Wondering if this video will stand harshly in opposition to Ellis's famously-taken-as-reductive "liking it is progressive" take and be mostly about its treatment of First Peoples, or if it'll strike a balance, or if it won't mention that and it'll be small vaguely shitty thing people try and call wildly disproportionate consequences upon Contrapoints for #30.

[gascon-en-exil]

I wasn't certain at first about watching a nearly three-hour video on such an exhaustively-discussed and memetically bad property as Twilight, but I'm very glad that I did.

Of special note for me are her points on the male gaze and its counterparts and variations, especially after some of the nonsense I've seen in comments on certain videos of mine suggesting that certain trolling individuals (including, well, you know who) fail to understand what the male gaze even is, much less anything beyond that.

[ryukisgod]

I think one of the reasons Contrapoints decided to transition was vanity, and fear of aging. He could have gotten plastic surgery as Nick and become a more handsome man, but in most circumstances all kinds of people make fun of people who get plastic surgery. If he’d gotten that hairline surgery as Nick he’d be open to the same scrutiny as Elon Musk gets for his hair procedure. If he’d changed his jaw as Nick he’d be a laughing stock like Matt “second puberty” Rife.

I’m not saying trans people don’t get made fun of for their surgeries, BUT the audience Contrapoints cultivated believe in affirmation for trans people

[blorbocedes]

seeing the "oh. Oh. is bad writing" discourse migrate from twitter to here makes me feel like that contrapoints meme nobody wants to write fic anymore they want to endlessly critique writing fic

[olderthannetfic]

audience question: how did you approach having to explain jkr's descent into madness to people who are chronically online but aren't tapped into the major fandom community, without just sending them contrapoints' video? (i mean, i can, but i'd consider it as a last resort if they want further info)

context: my old college friend who is a hp fan (the usual childhood book geek backstory) recently bought the legacy game and i had to bite my tongue when they try to engage me with it. it's in the scope of our usual topics, which is just sending memes to each other and minding our own business in different fandoms, but now i feel like i should say something, except that opens up a can of worms because of the *waves hands* discourse surrounding it.

i'm not sure how to unpack this without me having to come out to them in some capacity first (which is something i've been planning to do for awhile now, i know i'm not obligated to). it's such a charged topic for a friendship that's built on daily posts of cat gifs and i'm not sure how to bring it up without seeming like i'm shaming them for it? it's astounding to me that they have no clue why 'they're not seeing any fanart of this character on twitter when they checked' and actually went to tumblr to find some, without bumping into any bullshit, but i guess the tags self-contain the topic so they don't get see any discourse against it.

tl;dr: should i even bring this up? or should i just let it die down? i feel kinda bad ignoring the topic, but it's also something that i would not prefer to engage with said friend because i don't want to spend my energy having to address it. (i should just send the contrapoints video, huh)

--

I think I would say something like "JKR turned into kind of a jerk over the years and it soured me on HP-related things." If they ask for details on her being a jerk, send the video link.

I don't think it's necessary to come out, nor do you need to elaborate a lot until they ask. You can get into the issues with the game itself if you want to, but if your primary aim is to get them to not talk to you about HP and/or to be aware that there's something going on with HP, you don't need to get into that level of detail.

The experience of not liking a creator anymore after they change or you find out things is pretty common. If you keep it more to "I feel sad now", that gives them less to get offended by or argue with and feels less like an accusation.

[max1461]

To my knowledge, neither "the majority of atheists are right-wing" nor "the majority of New Atheists ended up becoming right-wing" are true. I think these statements came about by exaggeration and discourse telephone from an initial observation that a number of the most prominent atheist/skeptic YouTubers (among them TJ Kirk and Thunderf00t) took a noticeably right-wing/"anti-SJW" turn around the time of GamerGate.

Anyway, I've seen a few people on here dismiss the New Atheism/Alt-Right connection as entirely a product of the imagination of pro-religion discourses, trying to disparage atheism for a left-wing audience by linking it to the right. Obviously there was some of this, but people claiming this is the whole story are just incorrect. There really was a stark and sudden right-wing turn in YouTube skepticism around 2012 or so, I was there and remember it clearly. You can go back and check, the videos are all still up. This is the climate on the platform that early "breadtubers" like ContraPoints and Hbomberguy were explicitly reacting to.

Obviously this isn't a point against atheism or skepticism. I am an atheist and a skeptic.

I'm just pointing this out because I have seen what I basically think are attempts to revise the received narrative by parties who were not actually there, and although the received narrative (something like "New Atheism became the Alt-Right" or "New Atheism became subsumed into the Alt-Right") is in fact wrong, the revisionists are also plainly incorrect about a bunch of stuff.

I think this is related to the whole "I don't do video, I only do text" sentiment on here. You guys don't know what was going on with video cause you're hardcore textheads. That's fine, but most people aren't, and the stuff that was happening with video was a big deal. You've gotta account for that.

[transexualpirate]

anon can't use google lmao also fym "receipts" as people pointed out in the comments she's super open about it

anyways. in case this is in good faith and anon (or anyone really) wants a more in depth look at things (other than just googling it which would also work but ok) i recommend this video essay by jessie earl, it's very well explained, if you have time for some elaboration this video is also great (probably my favorite on this subject, despite my love for jessie earl) but it's far longer. and there's also this video by contrapoints that's very well explained but focuses mostly on jkr's special participation in a podcast... about her. so the twitter and medium stuff is mostly left behind (it's still great though) and also if you want a deep dive into why jkr's own essay is definitely transphobic here it is!

if you'd rather read, this article exposes in an (imo) unbiased way most of her "problematic" tweets (including her small tantrum over stephen king saying trans women are women), starting by her reasonable and honestly respectful concerns - and showing how they escalated on their own and snow balled until she was calling gender affirming care conversion therapy and claiming the trans movement is here to "cover for predators". it also briefly mentions her books, which is where the racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism is most present, though it isn't talked about in detail. me, personally, i think this article puts it together a little more coherently, but it lacks a few specific happenings that the first one mentions, so there's that.

like i (and op) said earlier, the anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia are most present in her books (and in the people she associates with but ok) which i haven't read or even researched in depth about, so i wont be much help there - the most i know outside of what's mentioned in the links and video essays is what i know about her book explicitly calling autistic people gullible with a main character who was "very intelligent but easily manipulated" (or something among those words) because they were autistic, and ended up inadvertently joining an actual cult because of it. there's also a lot of misrepresentation in her books but again, haven't read them, im not your guy for that.

tl;dr: video essays on youtube or one (01) google search will magically give you all the answers you want. sorry for jumping on your post op

I dont get the jkr hate tbh I tried to find receipts and couldn't

shes a huge transphobe/terf plus the harry potter books are rife with antisemitism and racism

[woman-respecter]

I do want to know what bubble these people live in to think “using MRA unironically is a terf dogwhistle” ok so Contrapoints and Philosophy Tube, both trans women, are TERFs now? Like it’s the name of a real movement of sexist men on the internet that just like, objectively exists and that’s how they self describe lol. It’s one that has had a lot of discussion in the U.S. electoral politics realm this year because of the Trump campaign trying to appeal to young men who are into that movement. Idk it’s just really funny to me these people who live in some fandom Tumblr discourse bubble making these sweeping statements that apply to pretty much everyone outside of it, and how much they don’t seem to realize that they’re proving your point that when they think about men they’re probably thinking about Castiel. It’s like downstream of the fandom anti “if you’ve ever consumed media with X in it you’re evil” types who don’t realize they’ve just described like everyone who has ever watched Game of Thrones

YEAH LIKE. if even normies and complete non-feminists are able to acknowledge the harmful existence of mras, where does that put you if hearing the very mention of them sends uou into hysterics? methinks this person does not spend enough time offline or is a genuine woman hater.

[narrativelysignificantturtleduck]

after contrapoints's video on twilight (and just being in fandom a while) i understand and accept the domineering-man fantasy so common in romance and do not kinkshame but my resistance to it has always been that it is SUCH a prevalent dynamic and yet it does nothing for me. i watch zuko say "i'll save you from the pirates" and taunt katara while she's tied to a tree and i see the appeal intellectually but it just does not resonate. my feeling is just "get away from her ugh ew"

i think maybe it's that a lot of people into that stuff haven't analyzed it and grown to understand it so they think "this is what's universally sexy" and not just their specific (though common) sexual fantasy. and i'm just like. god this is so BORING there are so many fun sexy dynamics out there and yet this is the common one and all the discourse is about it and god could we Not

i guess what i'm saying is that my beef with zutara is that it's so normie. ooh you want edgy villain boy with the cool hero girl you project on? groundbreaking

[theweeklydiscourse]

I’m not sure if I was too young to see this but do you think the wish fulfillment narrative prevalent in acotar was also present in twilight? I can see some likening between the two series, some characters in both series being a red flag if you choose to analyze them but at the time it being super thrilling and romantic (don’t get me started on the problematic baby thing going on in both series) plus the whole Team X vs Team Y with the shipwar. I read that series when I was little, Breaking Dawn released when I was 12, and I don’t remember inserting into Bella that much but I remember the insane amount of Team Edward or Team Jacob discourse still I never really cared that much about the series. Maybe I just wasn’t old enough? I remember it had so much hype even amongst peers that weren’t avid readers like I was (I was a nerd that used reading as escapism) I imagine the discourse might have been on the same level, or worse, as acotar had twilight been a thing around this day of media.

Sorry I got carried away, basically, do you think there are similarities between the two? including the wish fulfillment narrative?

Also please ignore me if you don’t really know or care about Twilight, I love your takes and I’m just curious about what you might think on how the world works around two very popular series 😊 thank you for being so kind about my thoughts ❤️

I’m so glad that you like my takes! Thank you for this ask :)

The wish fulfillment narrative of Twilight is arguably one of its most recognizable elements and it provides a useful basis for analyzing what makes it so appealing to readers. On the surface, there is the simple explanation of two powerful supernatural hotties chasing the same (relatively passive) reader-identified character. However, the wish fulfillment narrative runs deeper than that, and engaging with Twilight on that level can allow us to see how ACOTAR bears many similarities to it.

In both series, the heroine’s identification with the masculine allows her to assert power and dominance vicariously while still maintaining her position as the protected party. My understanding of this subject is largely informed by Contrapoints’ video essay “Twilight” which discusses this phenomenon at length. In her essay, Contrapoints engages with the psychological aspects of the wish fulfillment narrative and analyzes the pleasurable elements of the series. In Twilight, Bella achieves this vicarious power through an alignment with a powerful masculine figure who then enables her to become more powerful through a supernatural transformation. Feyre also undergoes a major transformation, but in her case, the pursuit of vicarious power does not end through her union with Tamlin.

The reason why Maas constantly reiterates that Rhysand is the strongest high lord in history is because that’s what makes the notion of his attention so enticing. Feyre becoming the object of his affection and praise is meant to be a testament to her worth and establishes her as someone who can receive power through him. This way, the reader cannot only identify with the heroine, but also with the love interest whose view of the heroine is then looked at by reader. The pleasurable aspect of this dynamic is that the heroine gets to watch herself being looked at and recognize herself as a “sight” for the male love interest. It’s a dynamic that essentially affirms her worth, but in a manner that prevents her from existing as the male love interest does.

With reference to Tamlin, the reason why he is continuously relevant even after the conclusion of his character arc is that his continued self-inflicted isolation and misery affirms Feyre’s power over him. Feyre, the reader-identified character, gets to have it all. She can have a perfect marriage with Rhysand while also being able to enjoy her indirect ownership over Tamlin’s heart even if she no longer desires him. For Twilight, a similar situation occurs when Jacob imprints on Bella and Edward’s daughter and is then shackled to them through a supernatural bond. This way, Jacob stays in Bella’s orbit (albeit in a pretty bizarre way) and she gets to have the best of both worlds: powerful vampire soulmate and a former love interest who remains tethered to her.

Alongside the Contrapoints video, I’d also reccomend this video essay if you want to delve more into this topic. Most of what I’m writing comes from what I’ve learned in those two videos.

[ooglywooglies]

please dont tell me this is just going to be white woman youtuber defends other white woman youtuber for not discussing the racism in mormon racism book

wait was her video about why people dont like twilight? that was lindsays topic too about how "people dont like twilight bc theyre misogynistic" and native people were like UM theres also the racism??

i was gonna say even if shes defending natalies right to keep to her topic of the themes or whatever of dark forbidden vampire romance this already feels like a deeply weird video to make

watching another video essay about twilight discourse and it seems to be entirely based off of contrapoints video which i dont think ive ever seen

[frostops]

the current transmisogyny discourse about a certain trans women running defense for transmisogynists isnt even a new dynamic.

back when this site still discoursed about contrapoints, a lot of trans women who didnt like natalie wynn regularly got a lot of transmisogynistic harassment in defense of wynn. to the people doing it, they justified their own cruel treatment of trans women by painting it as a defense of one specific trans woman. and it wasnt just random nobodies on tumblr either.

Many people will remember vaush calling people who didnt like wynn neckbeard queers, the irnoy of which i guess was lost on him. but more recently, like last year iirc, after wynn lightly criticized him for whatever the most recent shitty thing he did (i dont remember thats too long a list) his response was to, on stream, syas shes like the people he used to "defend" her from (the neckbeard queers) and tell his audience to go after her.

being the good tranny only protects you for so long. saying its bad to criticize buck angel for outing a trans woman because he was nice to you only stops people from seeing you as no different than the trans women you contrast yourself against for so long

and you dont need to be as famous as wynn, or famous at all, for the same dynamic to exist. in any social setting, even one with just your personal friends, when someone makes a shitty comment about another trans woman, or trans women generally, you can say something and risk being ostracized, and stay quiet and nod along, or even join in. but when its not just you and your friends private discussions, when you have any level of fame, even tumblr fame, youre not just giving your friends permission to be shitty to you. your giving your equally famous friends AND all of your and their fans permission to be transmisogynists to any transfem so long as it can be justified as in your defense, and eventually they wont even care about that. they'll be waiting for you to trip up so they can decide to throw you away too.

[banjo-butch]

I certainly don't think it's the only thing and obviously blackpill culture exists for a multitude of other reasons, I just think there can be a nugget of truth within incel rhetoric (being unattractive under colonial desirability standards is it's own oppression with its own consequences) or within /tttt/ anti-hugbox culture (toxic positivity is often pervasive within progressive spaces to the point of silencing ugly people having frank conversations). Those nuggets of truth and the anxieties, hurt and alienation they represent are then used as the hook to onboard people into alt-right spaces; it's just one onboarding process but there are many others.

I just think it's a place where progressive spaces are weak to offering any counterpoint to prevent that onboarding; if your options are "you are undesirable, and here's why that's a bad thing you should feel ashamed of (and then blame minorities for)" or "you're beautiful, stop talking about being ugly" a lot of people would rather the social context in which their lived reality is being acknowledged, and then get swallowed into the other ideological trappings of those contexts. i think to avoid this would require progressive spaces (and specifically desirable people within them) to be willing to engage with desirability, which they currently aren't.

You guys arent gonna like this but youre wrong, passing privilege most definitely exists and to deny that denies the lived experience of trans women who are punished for being "ugly" even by other trans women, the most famous trans woman in the so called us is contrapoints, someone who has frequently made it clear that she believes that trans women who dont pass are bad for "the movement"

[velvetvexations]

"can you describe a binary trans woman in a way which isn't transphobic as hell? 🧐" yes, easily: she's any trans woman who wants to identify as a binary woman, it's as simple as that. The fact that people are pretending they weren't or don't identify as women as some kind of 'gotcha' is fucking embarrassing for them

It's truly not that complicated lmao. People are so terrified of having "boring" genders that they've completely invented a t***f*b menace terrorizing trans women for not being as kweer as them. The simple fact of the matter is that this non-binary strawman does not exist.

It honestly drives me so crazy how people will use the fact trans men are men as plausible deniability for blatant misogyny, calling trans men whiny and annoying is truly the "I'm not touching you!" Of misogyny

and then go "why are you misgendering yourself" when you call it out lol

the whole thing is blisteringly colonialist i wonder if these people view themselves as anti-racist progressives 🤨

they sure do!

It's funny, bc I've seen terfs claim that other cultures having third genders is just otherizing gay people. Its legit the exact same argument. Radfems are radfems are radfems.

as always

"trans men are always bitching and whining" is also a different sentence from "men are always bitching and whining", so, like trans men already heard that shit enough growing up do u (op, not you velvet) not maybe think there might be slightly different implications to saying that if he's trans

what even is critical thinking anymore

between tankies and radfems i straight up think we need to retire materialism. no one knows what that word means anymore

they should reread theory till they actually understand it but if the results are anything like the first time they'll just find new genocides to stan

Another anon reminded me that it was even a thing where like. if you were white and you tried to bring up roles in history considered now to be non-binary you would get told you were appropriating. like white people only get two genders??? which I swear is a thing I think I heard verbatim once (I'm pretty sure as self-loathing satire to be clear I don't think anyone was that mask off or direct)

Native Americans have a patent on extra genders

all im ever told to do is shut up about my problems. i'm transmasc, white, skinny, well off, high-functioning, able bodied, decent parents. i still suffered so much and i still suffer every day but it feels like i can never talk about it. 99% because of people like me ranting about THEIR trauma for the purpose of talking over people on the other side, who are actually oppressed for it, and it means i will never not be afraid to talk about my issues with them and because of that i feel i can never truly and deeply connect with them. bigotry from "my side" affects the oppressed most of all, but it affects me too. i wonder if you feel the same, being a transfem defending transmascs amidst the apocalypse of t(e)rfs. if so, i hope you're okay. i hope you can find other transfems with similar views who you can talk to about it, because that's what helps me <3

I know some cool transfems. One has been showing me her writing lately and oh my God it's so good and cool.

just realized that transfems all being non-binary is extra wild when one remembers the like. discourse when hating transtrenders and non-binary people generally was in vogue. does no one remember how awful using they/them for everyone you don't know is??? nd how that turned into a weird nb v transfem thing??? contrapoints did a whole thing??? part of her cancellation???

some people are happy to switch to whatever argument lets them be the biggest cunt in the room at any given point in time

I like the “my gender is whatever has the shortest line to the bathroom” joke, but truth be told, I’ve only actually done it once, with single stall bathrooms, and I did get caught. I live in a state without bathroom bills, so arrest wasn’t a threat, but it was still really fucking scary, and I don’t think I’m going to do it again. I usually dislike using any gendered bathroom for the exact same reasons. They all feel unsafe. I try not to use public bathrooms at all, because usually there isn’t a gender neutral restroom. When there is, I actually will wait for it. But just once, I thought to myself, “I really have to pee, there are two single stall gendered bathrooms, one is in use, it’ll be fine, no one will see me,” and it backfired. The “shortest line” jokes are wish fulfillment, ok? It’s a tumblr post, it’s not that serious.

nooooo it's transmisogyny!!!!! wahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Refreshing your blog over and over again to see if you’ve gotten to my anon yet <3 Getting parasocial with it

<3

i think it's really important to note that like. The other side of the "all trans women are nonbinary" coin is "all amab nonbinary people are women" to these people, and they do consistently misgender people they perceive as amab nonbinary, both by calling them men if they're not fem enough, women if they perform any kind of femininity, and just deciding they are actually afab if they look a certain way. One of the consequences of TMA as a descriptor is that it just flattens all amab trans experience into Transfem experience. And it can be okay for coalition labels to exist (trans as a term obviously describes a wide variety of experiences) but it often feels like it intentionally erases the existence of people who DO live their lives as Nonbinary, vs maybe having some gender fuckery they keep to theirselves to avoid actually having to deal with exorsexism. They will unintentionally acknowledge this with posts such as "I round to the nearest 'cisnifigant digit ' when talking to cis people about my gender", but they'll never call it that. Conveniently, it's actually transmisogyny now.

If you're non-binary and AMAB you're just pretending to not be a woman because transmisogyny has made you scared to be your true fymynyne self.

I need to complain about this to someone else before I bore my friends to death and flood culture blogs with it cuz like what the fuck is with all the anti endo cluster Bs like I'm actually going insane. it's always just.

sees relatable post look closer anti endo and it's always the pretentious type of anti endo too, like the ones that put the word 'endo' in fifty quotation marks because how else would we be able to tell that they don't think endos exist. it's hard being one of the few intelligent entities with a cluster b disorder. I'm sure you understand as someone who's also among the few.

cluster B disorders like you and I have make one inclined to drama lmao so it's not really surprising to me that a lot of them are loudly anti-endo

English does have a generic you, it's "one". As is: "As one knows, the generic you in English is one." "When one makes a statement it causes some kind of effect on another" "I can do many things to such a one."

Yeah, but that doesn't always sound as good.

Re clarifying generic you not you in particular, I sent an ask recently and clarified general you because Im aware Im writing a message to your account which feels like Im talking directly to you, which I am, but then it feels like any general use of 'you' would sound like its aimed at you in particular because its your account. So it felt important and polite to clarify that while I am talking to you, when I use general you it is general you, Im not being rude to you to your face Im being rude to the hypothetical people in the room. Im aware these are now very long sentences and I hope this makes sense. Basically its making sure you know the rudeness is not aimed at you even though I am talking to you in your inbox and using the same word you.

NW I know <3 It's just strange to me since it's clarified a lot and I don't remember it being this way when I was on Tumblr several years ago, so it's a new development in how people talk from my perspective.

Trfs are very quick to accuse transmascs (regardless of whether or not they pass) of having "male privilege" but if someone so much as implies that a boymoding trans woman has any access to male privilege at all theyre committing a Hate Crime and are Awful and Terrible. Very consistent logic.

the idea is that having to be stealth or misgendering yourself is Still A Bad Time but they can't extrapolate this to being the same for trans people AFAB too

there’s something so funny about the blog with an estrogen pun username getting on a high horse to say that making an extremely common trans joke is a sign of privilege. like i don’t even have anything witty to say in return, we love a lack of self awareness ig 😐

radical feminism is brain poison unfortunately

"you are not counter culture for saying Let Men Be Unapologetically Masculine" tell me you've never been to a bear bar without telling me you've never been to a bear bar oml @ OP of that post (feel free to post this when it is not the weekend)

lmao right though

transradfems absolutely self identify as radical feminists. eight years ago, when i was on this hellsite talking about anti-binary gender philosophy as a nonbinary person, i had swarms of people tell me i was actually being transmisogynistic by saying radical feminist was inherently transphobic because didn't I know there were trans women out there "reforming" it and some of them were even not white? I couldn't possibly remember what blog manifesto I was linked to, but my point remains. eight years ago i was told that trans women were gonna "reform" radical feminism, so i didn't have to bother talking about my experiences as a nonbinary "tme." and now look at where we are.

they should focus their efforts on reforming whatever educational system led to them being the people they are now

[apas-95]

i think if we had the contrapoints discourse now, the portion of people whose response was 'i can't believe we're really taking a TRANS WOMAN talking about her experience and saying she's a transmedicalist social democrat' would be like 5x larger