#dyadic privilege

[a-crippled-creature]

dear american government classmates

i know that you don't realize this, but not only (cis dyadic) women can get pregnant. not every man is your oppressor. there are some men who are in the same boat as you. affected by the dehumanized beliefs as you, if not worse.

and the fucking fact that you brush it off, after i tried explaining it twice tells me that you rather keep on being purposefully ignorant, since it's easier to keep this binary sense of victim-hood than to have an ounce of empathy for other people than your own, shows me that you're complacent in the deaths of trans, intersex, and other gender/sex variant people.

so don't be fucking surprise when we say that you have blood on your hands. don't be fucking surprise when we attack you next.

[atypical-transfem]

Kind of a rhetorical question

Can someone (preferably other intersex peeps) please explain how dyadics/perisex/endosex are so hellbent on not being reminded of the fact that they're dyadic/perisex/endosex?

Like this doesn't even bringing up the fact they're so ignorant about their privilege and how their community, at large, is so inaccessible for the intersex (and questioning) community.

Why do they have such a knee-jerk reaction when we remind them that they, by large, (supposedly) benefits from intersex suffering?

[genderisareligion]

Gender is pseudoscience.

Starts with a conclusion, works backwards - "Gender has always existed and is innate in each individual" "What about people who don't feel it? What about the fact that we can trace the word's usage and see that it didn't start being used this way until the 20th century? What about the fact that it was originally used to describe roles, not the actual people performing them?" "I can't hear you"

Hostile - "Detransitioning is like being an ex-gay" "Okay, but being gay doesn't run the risk of medical malpractice or require HRT/risky surgery" "Neither does being trans" "Then why do any of you do it?" "Kill yourself. Punch/kill/rape a TERF" "What's a TERF?" "A homosexual woman or anyone who agrees with their sexual boundaries"

Vague jargon - "AMAB/AFAB/AGAB" "Oh, you mean terminology exclusively used by intersex people to describe and try to prevent their various medical malpractices?" "No it's a hate crime for doctors to correctly determine the sex of dyadic newborns in the hospital" / "TME/TMA" "Oh, so socialization does matter? AFABs have to constantly watch their backs because they might be internalizing some cis woman privilege? What about AMABs?" "Kill yourself"

Beyond the evidence - Deadass someone once said to me that HRT "changes your DNA and every cell in your body." All I had for her in the moment was "Lol"

Cherry picking - See this post

Flawed methods - And this one

Feel free to add more examples.

[trans-axolotl]

okay making a separate post bc i don't really want to get into any drama but like.

idk. intersex is such a broad umbrella term!! there's many ways we have overlap in our experiences. all of us are impacted by intersexism. all of us are impacted by compulsory dyadism.

it's true that there are many of us who don't fit into dyadic ideas about cisness or transness. like, for example idk if i would ever call myself ftm. like i was assigned nothing at birth for about a week and then eventually assigned female at birth and then i went through a testosterone based puberty naturally and then was put on estrogen and anti-androgens and started growing a chest and then went on testosterone got top surgery and then and then and then. anyway its like i am an intersex trans man but im not female to male, im not a dyadic trans man, i don't resonate with endosex transition timelines whatever whatever whatever. but my identity as trans is important to me, whatever.

i know many intersex people who don't see themselves as either cis or trans and just identify as intersex. i know many trans intersex people who it's complicated. i know many cis intersex people who identify as cis but it's complicated. so i don't feel like i would ever say like "oh all cis intersex people experience this thing" or "all cis intersex people have this social location etc etc etc" "All cis intersex people don't experience this kind of discrimination."

but at the same time i am SO tired of seeing ppl make umbrella statements that are like "this thing applies to all trans intersex people" "this thing applies to all cis intersex people" and especially when it comes to saying that all cis intersex people don't sometimes have cis privilege in certain contexts or that cis intersex people can't be transphobic.

bc idk after studying the past 30 years of american intersex activism for my thesis one of the things that CONSISTENTLY jumps out to me is the tension between queer intersex community, and medicalized intersex community that is almost exclusively cis. like so many of the dsd organizations, throughout their past 15 years, have EXPLICTLY made comments disparaging other intersex organizations, calling them too militant, saying that they're ruining the intersex community because they ally with trans people like. all this transphobic bullshit. the dsd organizations today still use very gendered language, let radfems do fucking whatever in their organizations, advocate for surgery and so much other bullshit. like that actively harms trans intersex people especially in a situation where we have such limited resources. there are SO few resources for our specific diagnoses. like if i need medical information for my specific variation, if i need information on like, medication routines, genetic testing, complications, comorbidities, etc etc etc, i HAVE to go to a transphobic organization to get those resources. because there is literally not another diagnosis specific organization that exists! it's the only one! and it means that there are so many more barriers to me accessing the resources, community, and care that i need. because of transphobic intersex people. like. thats an example of how some cis intersex people really cling to their cisness, try to weaponize their cis privilege, and actively cause intracommunity discrimination. you know?

like. idk. i just think that we need to be realistic! in terms of intersex intracommunity things, there absolutely is a lot of transphobia! not from everyone, not saying that every intersex person is either cis or trans, with the understanding that every cis intersex persons experience is still shaped by compulsory dyadism and that shapes how we're viewed as our "real" gender or ways that society thinks we "fail" at our gender but just.

im tired! im tired.

[hiiragi7]

what are your thoughts/input on transandrophobia?

I think that a lot of people inappropriately view masculinity itself as synonymous with privilege, when it is far more complex than that. The presence of masculinity itself is not privilege, nor is it even seen as an inherent goodness; for individuals who do not fit societal expectations for masculinity (socially, sexually, chromosomally, hormonally, and so on), rather than being viewed as near or moving towards embodying a "perfect" male body, those with any ambiguity or cross-sex experiences are viewed as disordered and non-conforming.

Intersex people are systemically altered and mutilated for traits deemed masculine, so masculinity is not inherently seen as positive; transgender men are also often strongly discouraged from transitioning towards masculinity. In examining this, I find that while maleness is associated with privilege, it is only so as long as that maleness aligns with colonialist concepts of what maleness is and how it performs. In other words, it is conditional, and it upholds dyadic and cis binaries.

Even in the case of trans men who are "stereotypically male" in terms of their bodies and how they behave socially, who have a flat chest, testicles, a penis, and do not have a vagina, uterus, and ovaries, and whom pass, they are still viewed as queerly disordered; factors such as being born female or intersex but transitioning to manhood, being raised socially as a different gender, being on HRT for the rest of their lives, having had surgeries done in order to reaffirm their gender, these are things which fall outside of sexual and gender norms and which affect the ways in which a person can access privilege. For those who do not fit bodily or social expectations of masculinity, it is even more ambiguous.

A large discourse I have seen with regards to transandrophobia/antitransmasculinity is that it pushes the idea that misandry is a systemic issue, which I strongly disagree with; trans men and transmasculine people will experience oppression based on masculine traits and manhood, and this concept is not particularly out there or odd to me, as an intersex person which sees intersex people oppressed specifically for expressing manhood or masculinity. When masculinity or manhood is experienced outside of the rules of the enforced gender sex binary, it is repressed and exorcised.

While individual trans men may conditionally experience aspects of male privilege in some areas of life, this is not true of most trans men. I don't find it useful when people make broad statements like "transitioned trans men have male privilege" or "trans men are inherently privileged over trans women because they are men" or so on. I also find it ignores racial and cultural differences and how that impacts privilege.

So, in closing, I do find that trans men and transmasculine people experience oppression based on expressing masculinity or manhood, though similarly to transmisogyny I do not believe this oppression is inherently unique to them, and may be experienced by trans people outside of trans men and transmasculine people depending on the circumstances. I think language to describe that experience is important, as with transmisogyny. I also find that transandrophobia/antitransmasculinity and transmisogyny are not in conflict with each other, and rather are deeply intertwined expressions of overlapping oppressive systems.

[doberbutts]

honestly i do think things like abortion and birth control are issues affecting people who can get others pregnant. i think the idea that pregnancy is solely the responsibility of the person who got pregnant isn't accurate and hurts more than it helps. for example: a cis, dyadic man and his partner cannot secure birth control for socioeconomic or legal reasons, but he can get a vasectomy. vasectomies are potentially irreversible. he does not want to have a child with his partner right now, but does in the future. his options are now potential sterilization (bad), a child he doesn't want/18+ years of child support (not ideal), or no sex (and as gays i think we can agree that the ability to have sex if you and your partner both want to is kinda important). as a cis dude! to a lesser extent, sure, but if we agree trans men are affected by transmisogyny to a relevant degree, i think we can agree that people who can get others pregnant are affected by uterine legislation to a relevant degree.

Vascectomies being completely reversible is an oft-repeated half-truth. They are reversible to an extent but most do have a loss of virility and the longer you go the more likely you'll experience this.

I am sort of here and there on the rest. I do not think that pregnancy is solely the responsibility of the person who gets pregnant- it takes two to tango, after all. However I think that ultimately the pregnant person's bodily autonomy trumps the wishes of anyone else in the equation- if they do not want to be pregnant, they do not have to stay pregnant. As far as an unwanted child the pregnant person wants to keep, well, I'm sorry but that's a case for extensively talking to your partner about all the "what if"s before hopping in bed with them. If you don't want a child, make sure that's clear well prior to the "oh shit" moment and do your best to prevent it from happening on your end. If that means not having sex with someone you can't be sure will respect your wishes, I'm sure you will survive.

However this is a bit off track from my point which was: trans women who do not have a uterus [as in, are not an intersex variation that would allow for this] do not need to worry about getting an abortion or receiving menstral care. The above doesn't change my point. If you don't have a uterus, you do not have to convince a doctor to give you an abortion. You don't have to convince your insurance company to pay for what you don't have to receive. And you don't have to worry about your M marker causing any and all pregnancy care to be denied by an algorithm.

Trans women have their own reproductive problems to worry about when it comes to medical transphobia. It's just that pregnancy isn't one of them unless she's got a very specific intersex variation. To be clear, I'm not saying that trans men or trans women are privileged when it comes to medical care- I'm saying that neither of us have privilege when it comes to the way the medical industry handles us, and giving an example of a distinct problem for trans men.

[dykepuffs]

When patriarchy is totally 100% abolished and a thing of the past, and along with it cisnormativity, dyadicism, heteronornativity and the privileging of the nuclear family are just things that people see in history textbooks - Once nobody alive can remember living under those systems, and nobody alive has even met someone who did: Will men and women still exist?

[ciswomenofficial]

hi.. are you radical feminist as in you hate men/males etc??

I have an analytical framework. Taking an analytical framework does not imply hating men. Sure enough, I hate some men personally, as I hate some women, and some queer and trans people personally, but I do not hate every individual man and I hope that we can mobilize more men across the world to join us in the struggle for scientific socialism and women’s, queer, and trans liberation. I am to some degree against “men” as a category of people who have access to certain benefits in society that I believe they should not and who are experienced as oppressive by women and queer people to varying degrees, but I don’t think every man should be handled with hostility, nor that oppressiveness where it does exist should fully divide us or be treated out of hand as an antagonistic contradiction. When I say men are oppressive to women, it is not a moral judgement, or a statement that all men are equally oppressive, or a denial that some women may be oppressive to some men (for instance a white woman being oppressive to a black man), but it is a statement that men as individuals—willfully or not—are allotted into a position in society that is itself oppressive to those allotted into the position of woman, and in fact that the categories of “man” and “woman;” “straight” and “gay;” “cis” and “trans;” “dyadic” and “intersex” are created and given rise to by power structures in society that divide people into upperclasses and underclasses, rather than springing primarily from genitalia (as biological essentialism) or personal identity (as laissez-fair idealist essentialism). Those other factors may have an impact on gender and sex, but they are the secondary factors in a dialectical relationship between themselves and gender as structures in a social (as in existing in the relations between people) and political (as in relating to who is empowered and disempowered in society) institutions. While men need not exempt themselves of their status and privileges, they can fight against the system, as the bourgeoisie Fredrick Engles used his money to advance the scientific study of socialism and proletarian movement. At the end of the day, fighting will mean giving up the system of advantage that in some ways benefits them, and they’ll have to accept that, but men are perfectly capable of being comrades to women committed to women’s political interests.

[variousqueerthings]

Amatonormativity is a kind of harmful stereotyping.  It also encourages structuring law and society on the assumption that amorous relationships are the norm.  This discriminates against, and at worst creates barriers to making other kinds of relationships – friendships, asexual romances, some kinds of polyamory – central to one’s life.

Amatonormativity and its privileges can also pressure people to enter and remain in exclusive sexual dyadic relationships – even when such relationships are bad for them, or costly, or simply not what that individual needs.  For example, think of advice to ‘settle’ for a mediocre mate, just to be partnered or coupled!

[fiercestpurpose]

Amatonormativity: What It Means

Happy February! Since we’re apparently still having the same conversations we’ve been having for the past five years, let’s talk about amatonormativity.

Elizabeth Brake, who studies feminist philosophy, coined the term “to describe the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship.” [x]

So this means that if your grandmother asks about your love life even though you’ve told her you don’t want her to ask about that anymore bc it’s not important to you… that’s amatonormativity.

We all recognize that interpersonal interactions are important to reinforcing societal norms (misogyny, for example), but amatonormativity has consequences outside of that as well. These don’t get talked about as much on tumblr, because this is the fandoms and personal life website so people tend to talk about amatornomativity in their fandoms or personal life, but they do exist.

Specifically, amatonormativity has legal consequences, including consequences for access to housing, inheritance law, and custody of children. [x]

(Interestingly, the blog post linked above notes that disabled people, for example, can lose benefits when getting married. This suggests that in this instance, other societal forces conflict with amatonormativity and their interests win out. It’s more important to control disabled people or to not be socialist (or both) than to push romantic relationships.)

There’s also the argument that amatonormativity is already described by the word heteronormativity. Brake addresses that on her website, and says yes, there is significant overlap: “To the extent that exclusive, dyadic relationships are a heterosexual ideal, amatonormativity overlaps with heteronormativity. Like heteronormativity, it can be found throughout social life, and it can be understood in relation to other systems of oppression, for example in its relation to gender roles (e.g., the stereotype of the single male differs from that of the single female, and men and women are understood as needing marriage for different reasons).” [x]

However, it is important to note that many of the legal consequences above privilege married same-sex couples over unmarried couples. The UC Law Review blog also discusses specifically how amatonormativity is reaffirmed by the Obergefell decision, even as it strikes a blow to heteronormativity.

(The relation between the two terms is complicated, since some scholars (legal and philosophical) might consider Obergefell and the same-sex marriage fight to be fundamentally heteronormative in their replication of heterosexual marriages. The term “amatonormativity” is a useful one for avoiding that particular question of definition and bringing clarity to the conversation.)

Heteronormativity and amatonormativity are fundamentally related, as are homophobia and biphobia or homophobia and misogyny, but we still recognize the utility of having different terms that speak to specific parts of our experience.

Who’s affected by amatonormativity? Everyone, obviously, since it describes a belief that tries to apply itself to everyone. If you know a woman who has been expected to put her friendships to the side after she got a boyfriend, you’ve seen the effects of amatonormativity (and heteronormativity, and misogyny. I told you they were all related).

Amatonormativity especially affects asexual/aromantic people and polyamorous people, since these types of people are often not in an “exclusive, dyadic relationship,” to use Brake’s terminology.

tldr: amatonormativity is an academic term used to describe the social and legal situation in which everyone is expected to have or desire to have a single romantic partner; the term overlaps with but is not identical to heteronormativity.

[8-evil-annoying-catboys]

friendly AGGRESSIVE reminder that ENTIRE OTHER GROUPS OF TRANS/GNC PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY!! TGNC INDIVIDUALS can be terrible people as part of ANY subset group of TGNC people but as a WHOLE, there is NO GROUP OF ONE SPECIFIC GENDER OF TGNC PPL that is inherently bad. NOT trans binary dyadic women, NOT trans binary dyadic men, NOT nonbinary or genderqueer people of ANY coercively assigned sex at birth, NOT gnc people who refuse to define their gender identity as cis or trans, and CERTAINLY not intersex trans people!! we are ALL in this together whether we fucking like it or not so we’d best get used to each other as soon as possible, if we want to have ANY chance of having new rights won or existing rights PROTECTED in the near future!! we are one of the most vulnerable marginalised groups rn because it’s easy to target us, and it gets easier the more intersections an individual’s identity has with other marginalised groups, so those of us with ANY kind of privilege (white, gentile, abled, dyadic, rich or just not in poverty, etc) had BETTER stand up for our siblings who have less privilege than us, especially if it’s immediately visible!! if you’re white or pass as white, you BETTER stand up for your trans siblings of color, especially those with darker skin or other immediately visible racialised traits (like monolids, for one example)!! if you’re a gentile, you NEED to stand up for your jewish trans siblings!! i could go on but this list would be so fucking long!! the point im making here is WE NEED EACH OTHER and there is NO REWARD WAITING FOR YOU if you throw your fellow trans people under the bus just because their gender or sex is different from yours, in fact if that’s you, and if there is a hell, you are fucking going there!! WE NEED TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER, AND PROTECT EACH OTHER, NOT TALK OVER EACH OTHER AND TRAMPLE EACH OTHER FOR AN ENTIRELY TEMPORARY CRUMB OF RESPECT FROM OUR OPPRESSORS!!!!!!!!

[illnessfaker]

"looking for ways society privileges dyadic romantic relationships" and the examples either explicitly have to do with the institution of marriage (including polygamy being illegal...lol), the nuclear family, or apparently um. seating arrangements at restaurants being annoying if you're not a duo(..?)

not exactly compelling.

[thinking-aromanticism]

The book in which “amatonormativity” was first coined and defined is Minimizing Marriage by Elizabeth Brake.

some quick quotes from the book (if you think the quotes aren’t so quick, consider that they’re a lot quicker than reading the entire book):

““amatonormativity”—the focus on marital and amorous love relationships as special sites of value”

“The belief that marriage and companionate romantic love have special value leads to overlooking the value of other caring relationships. I call this disproportionate focus on marital and amorous love relationships as special sites of value, and the assumption that romantic love is a universal goal, “amatonormativity”: This consists in the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. The assumption that valuable relationships must be marital or amorous devalues friendships and other caring relationships, as recent manifestos by urban tribalists, quirkyalones, polyamorists, and asexuals have insisted.”

“Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance” [note/analysis from me: this specifically applies to situations where these things are considered unusual. Going alone to get a bite to eat at a taco truck while single is not considered unusual or something that one “should” have a partner for, so it doesn’t violate amatonormativity, while preferentially dining without one’s partner and eating dinner alone at a nice sit-down restaurant may. Having roommates while single in college does not violate amatonormativity, choosing to live with friends instead of one’s partner does. Use your discretion to figure out what would actually register as “abnormal” in your social context.]

“Amatonormativity wrongly privileges the central, dyadic, exclusive, enduring amorous relationship associated with, but not limited to, marriage. By “central,” I mean the relationship is prioritized by the partners over other relationships and projects. Such relationships tend to be characterized by sexual exclusivity, domesticity, and shared property, but need not be: Couples who maintain an enduring amorous relationship but refrain from sex, maintain separate domiciles, or keep their property disentangled, can still be recognized socially as amorous partners. Conversely, two friends who have sex, live together, or share property would not be privileged by amatonormativity if the friends did not present themselves as romantic partners. Thus, legal marriage, sex, shared domicile, or shared property are not necessary conditions for privilege; an amorous, enduring, central love relationship is. While marriage is not necessary for privilege, it is usually sufficient for it. While amorous love, endurance, and centrality are jointly sufficient for privilege, no one of these features is independently sufficient. A brief, amorous summer fling or extramarital affair would not be privileged, and friendships may be central and enduring but still not privileged”

“The relationships penalized by amatonormativity may or may not involve sex and romantic love. Polyamorous relationships fail to meet the norm, just as groups of friends do. Polyamorists have multiple domestic or sexual partners, who in turn also typically have other partners, and these multiple relationships are character- ized by affectionate bonds as well as sex (although there is some debate within the polyamorous community as to whether polyamory must involve love). Elizabeth Emens gives examples of the range of polyamorous configurations falling outside the norm of “compulsory monogamy” as well as amatonormativity: Mormon polygyny, an “ethical slut,” a woman with two “husbands,” and a four-partner family or “multi- party marriage.”” [note/analysis from me: because Brake is writing from and to a USAmerican perspective, her examples relate to what is normative in the USA as a whole. Polygyny may be amatonormative in a social context where it’s normative, like within a Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints community or in Saudi Arabia. Even then, however, the same behavior that may be normative in an accepting community is still non-normative when the Mormon or Saudi polygamist is talking about it with a circle of secular Americans in New York.]

“One way of demarcating the privilege accorded by amatonormativity is that the privileged relationships are given family status. Family tends to be understood, for legal and census purposes, either by marriage or a marriage-like relationship (such as monogamous cohabitation or “common-law” marriage) or by the presence of chil- dren. Further, the reproductive family tends to be understood in marital terms… while single parents and married or “common law” parents are recognized in law, extended-family or friend parental groups tend to remain invisible.”

“Amatonormative discrimination does not consist merely in stereotyping and lack of social recognition. Much tangible discrimination attaches to marital status. Discrimination in housing, with preferential treatment for the married, is legally permitted in the United States, and is official government policy in military housing. An array of government benefits is accessible by the married, widowed, and divorced. Married or formerly married persons qualify for U.S. Social Security payments based on their spouse’s employment. Married workers receive significantly higher benefit packages when these include spousal health insurance at a reduced rate, while unmarried persons receive no opportunity to purchase health insurance for a friend. Workplace discrimination is the apparent cause of the fact that married men receive significantly higher pay than their unmarried male peers with similar levels of achievement; moreover, singles widely report being expected to work evenings and holidays, to take on assignments involving extensive travel, and otherwise being treated by employers as if their nonwork commitments were less important than those of married co-workers. Physicians report providing better care to patients whom they saw as family members. Finally, law enforces “compulsory monogamy” by imposing penalties—not just in criminal law penalizing adultery and bigamy, including bigamous cohabitation in some states, but through residential zoning laws limiting numbers of unrelated cohabitants and in child custody decisions. (For example, the child of a woman with two “husbands” was removed due to the judgment that her lifestyle was immoral.)”

-

A lot of people in the aromantic community online use “amatonormativity” to mean, basically, alloromonormativity, that is, an expectation that people will feel an emotion of romantic love and engage in romantic relationships based on it. Sometimes they will use amatonormativity to refer to the expectation that people feel emotions of love at all, including love toward family and friends. I would caution against using it in the former way and I would caution strongly against using it in the latter way. That said, Brake’s definitions and analysis aren’t the last word on amatonormativity just because they’re the first words. There are valuable expansions on the idea of amatonormativity from aromantics, and you should use your own judgment to think critically about how this term and idea should best be understood.

truly being an ally to or a supporter of aro/ace folks means doing your best to understand what amatonormativity is, how it impacts aspec people's lives, and how it constrains us all.

[seasnailsplatoon]

anyone else's PCOS wildly gender affirming

[intersex-support]

it really drives me crazy that in the debate for trans rights, intersex people get completely forgotten by both sides. like, don't get me wrong, im a trans man and understand that the knee-jerk response to terfs saying 'they're transing kids genders' is to say that nobody's fucking doing that, because trans kids aren't getting access to puberty-blockers, even (they should be allowed puberty blockers tho but that's a whole other subject), let alone HRT or surgeries.

except for intersex kids. and i understand when trans people forget about us, it's usually not malicious ignorance, but it still hurts. and then of course there's the ridiculousness that is terfs claiming that kids are getting gender-affirming treatments while completely ignoring the realities of IGM. like. just say you hate trans people.

it feels like nobody cares about us except ourselves, and even then internalized intersexism is so pervasive that we barely even have that. it gets a little lonely. and im privileged enough to have a less visible intersex condition - i can only imagine what it's like for people who don't have that privilege.

What's fucked up is that there is evidence showing hrt saves trans kids lives, and igm puts intersex lives in danger. It's almost like taking autonomy away and dehumanizing people is a bad thing... because it is lol. Also to add to that, it's not just puberty blockers, hrt, and surgery that's being denied to trans people (AND intersex people for that matter, whether trans or not we often get denied essential hormones and affirming surgeries), it's also just the denial of being able to express ourselves in general.

Honestly, a lot of dyadic trans people often make it feel like they're the only ones suffering from the enforcement of gender, and that their experience is the epitome of all gender experiences. I'd like to say it's because they don't know any better, but some of them most definitely do. It's hard when intersex trans people are the only ones talking about it, it makes it feel like we're only collateral damage.

I would love to see more dyadic trans people think better about their wording, trans spaces need to start being safe for intersex people. We really do not have a lot of places we can go right now.

Edit: dyadic people, don't reblog this. We do not have the capacity currently to deal with discourse that always comes with things like this being shared. We're also not here to tell you how to be inclusive of intersex people unless we choose to.

[raskies456]

saying this as a trans dude: I honestly think you really can’t be a good trans ally if you’re gonna treat cis dyadic men as inherently evil/worse than everyone else

like yes toxic masculinity and certain socialization and being unaware of privilege can lead to a higher incidence of shitty behavior, it’s not stupid to be wary of cis dyadic men, but that’s different than believing they are *inherently* worse than anyone else simply by the fact that they are cisgendered men

you can’t say you don’t discriminate based off of gender identity while also saying that people of a certain agab and gender identity are inherently bad full stop.

also it Will bleed over to trans people even if you don’t realize it. if you think being amab and male makes someone shitty you’re gonna apply that to amab trans people and transmascs regardless of agab. any amab person who doesn’t completely dissociate from masculinity and any person who embraces it is gonna be considered shittier than everyone else bc they’re closer to cis men, unless people just ignore the parts of peoples identity and presentation they don’t like which is still garbage

and also like. even if it didn’t affect trans people it’s still incredibly shitty to think that any gender identity/agab combo is inherently worse than others