#functionally and fundamentally it's not the same gender experience

[nothorses]

hot take but I think the "we're only talking about people who identify as queer when we talk about the queer community" thing was and is one of the worst arguments in defense of the word.

I am talking about you when I say "the queer community", and "queer people", and "queer studies". I'm describing a thing that a large group of people have in common, and you share that thing in common. Your individual comfort with the word doesn't change the definition of it.

I'm sorry you don't like that word. You don't ever have to call yourself that, and you don't have to like it, and I won't ever call you that if you don't want me to.

What I am going to do, however, is decide what language I use based on A) how inclusive it is, and B) how well it communicates my point to the relevant audience.

"Inclusive" here is an important criteria; this refers to the number of people who should be included, that are included, ideally without some kind of weird hierarchy (like we see in "LGBT+" and variations). The technical definition is what we're talking about here- putting personal comfort aside, could the word "queer" describe you?

There will always be someone who doesn't like a particular word for themselves- even if it could apply. Lots of people don't like "LGBT+" (I don't really), even if it technically applies to them. You're not more important than they are.

You can identify one way on a personal level, and still understand that when we're discussing the larger community of people and the histories attached to it, you're included in that- even if you don't personally identify with the specific word we're using. Your story, your voice, and your presence matters.

Y'all need to learn to distinguish "broad term for an experience I share with others" from "personal identity label I use to describe my individual experience to others". ASAP.

[identitty-dickruption]

okay let's fucking go what is the social model of disability actually about?

the first thing you need to understand is the divide between disability and impairment. this is best understood as parallel with the sex/gender distinction drawn by some feminists. the social model says that impairment is medical and disability is social

impairments are understood as innate features of how your body functions (or. doesn't function). think about symptoms that are held in your body/mind. pain. fatigue. anhedonia. etc. you have an impairment when your body/mind/bodymind does not function in the ways expected of a healthy/abled human body

disabilities are more socially and culturally contingent than impairments. a disability is generated when a person's impairments are not met with adequate social structures, built environments, etc. this is where you might see claims such as "a wheelchair user is disabled by an inability to walk in the same way as an aeroplane user is disabled by an inability to fly". here we are thinking about social and cultural attitudes as well as a lack of physical accessibility

it is from this fundamental binary that the social model emerges. the social model says:

while impairments are real and can be disabling on their own, disability emerges or is worsened by a failure of society to adequately cater to differences of body and mind

there is a dialogue between bodies and environments that changes the nature of ability and disability from moment to moment

there is a coherent identity group we can call "disabled people". this group is bound together by shared social experiences, and are subject to shared discrimination/oppression

disability is contingent on social and cultural factors in such a way that someone who is considered disabled in one place would not necessarily be considered disabled in a different place (e.g. in an environment of high illiteracy and low reliance on written communication, dyslexia is less disabling than in an environment where literacy is assumed)

disability is not a personal tragedy, and disabled people do not exist to be pitied by abled people

all of these features of the social model of disability are 100% open to criticism. there is a grey area between impairment and disability that isn't well catered to by the social model. there are issues with calling 'disability' a coherent identity group for all the usual identity politics reasons. etc etc. criticisms of these nature are entirely acceptable and reasonable, and I agree with a lot of them (which is why I am not a supporter of the social model, I'm a supporter of the political-relational model)

however. criticisms that narrow down to "but not 100% of disability is socially constructed".... yeah not valid, acceptable, or reasonable. on account of the fact that the social model Does Not Say That. Michael Oliver (the creator of the social model) himself admits that it's not 100% social. which is why he isn't arguing that everything is social. he's just not

I recommend reading Tom Shakespeare's analysis of the social model of disability. the key parts of this analysis can be found in the disability studies reader 4th edition, which you can find here: https://ieas-szeged.hu/downtherabbithole/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Lennard-J.-Davis-ed.-The-Disability-Studies-Reader-Routledge-2014.pdf

sorry for the long post hope it helps

[genderkoolaid]

actually fuck it im gonna deconstruct this carrds shitty argument about bi dykes and stereotypes

"Every woman is attracted to men in some capacity, even lesbians." The implication is that lesbians can be attracted to men, which is LESBOPHOBIC.

Again: bisexual women who used to identify as lesbians until they found themselves attracted to a man can also be used to say that all lesbians are attracted to men.

"It's possible for lesbians to be in a healthy romantic or sexual relationship with men." This is blatantly LESBOPHOBIC, as lesbians are often pressured to enter relationships with men (compulsory heterosexuality).

This one is just fucking ridiculous. It is not up to you to define what a healthy relationship is for other people. To suggest that any relationship between a self-identified relationship and a man must be unhealthy deprives the lesbian of the autonomy to decide how they feel about their relationships. Even if the lesbian ends up not wanting to date or fuck men- there are lesbians who dated men and have nothing but fondness for the relationship, they just realized it wasn't for them. This is like saying its impossible for an asexual to have a healthy sexual relationship or for an aromantic to have a healthy romantic one.

"Bisexuality is a phase. Bi people always end up picking a side." The implication is that bisexuality does not really exist and that the bisexual label is just a temporary placeholder until they find their real identity, which is blatantly BIPHOBIC.

See the first statement but in reverse. This would suggest that lesbians who used to identify as bisexual- perhaps because of that compulsory heterosexuality that exclus love to throw around as the answer anytime a dyke does something they don't agree with- are being biphobic because they can be used as "proof" that bisexuals will always "pick a side." If we are judging the worth of person's identity based on how it can be used by queerphobes, we have already fucking lost.

"Bisexuality means that you're equally attracted to men and women." The implication is that you're no longer bisexual if you have a preference for one gender is BIPHOBIC. "You cannot be bisexual unless you date both men and women." The implication is that you're not bisexual anymore if you don't have dating history to "prove it", which is BIPHOBIC. "Bisexuality means that you're half-gay half-straight / part-gay part-straight." By supporting bi lesbians (and bi gay men or bi straight people) you're treating bisexuality as a modifier rather than a full identity, which is BIPHOBIC

grouping all these together because they are essentially the same argument: "bi lesbian meaning this which means that "bisexual" must mean that!!!!" which is not true. Bi lesbians existing do not mean anything for other bisexuals' definition of their identities, & the same applies for lesbians.

Some trans men define their manhood as being just like a cis man, but in a female body. They may transition and no longer identify as trans. Meanwhile, other trans men feel like their manhood is fundamentally trans, and while they and cis men may both be equally male, their manhood is fundamentally different to cis man's.

By the above logic, the second group is TRANSPHOBIC because they "say" that trans men can't be the same as cis men. Unless.... just maybe........ we consider that one label can be used to describe a multitude of experiences........

Of course, the creator of this carrd couldn't stand for that idea. Since their second argument as to why bi dykes are bad is:

"We have created these labels to understand ourselves and each other and to effectively communicate with one another. Once you abstract it to the point where it is impossible to communicate an idea to another person without them having to ask for further clarification, those labels lose their functionality and become useless."

Which is funny, because there are plenty of bi lesbians who are active in both their local bisexual and lesbian communities without issue. Because they can still effectively communicate; people, surprisingly, have the ability to understand abstract concepts and nuanced identities.

Not every asexual never wants sex; there are asexuals who enjoy sex. The fact that you can't assume every asexual is nonsexual does not pose this great, existential threat to asexuals who don't fuck. The fact that you have to ask people things about them & can't just assume based off of a single label is not the end of communication itself, actually. If "lesbian" tells you that someone is attracted to women, either in a WLW way or in a way that is rooted in lesbian culture, then all you have to fucking do is not assume that they never fuck or date men.

The problem is, of course, that most of these people are "anti-TERF" radfems who don't realize it, and they have gotten in their brains that if there is no special "women only" term then the entire fucking world will collapse into a blighted misogynistic hellscape. And of course they don't need to think critically about why they feel this way, they just know its bad... but they think trans women can be lesbians so it has nothing to do with TERFs and how dare you imply it does!!!!!

[molsno]

hii so im kind of confused about the general inner workings of transmisogyny as an extension of transphobia and was hoping you could clarify. basically, transphobes & terfs in particular say that trans women are men, however they treat trans women differently than men, dehumanizing them on the basis of their gender. i always interpreted this as a form of gender discrimination that aims to define trans women as a lower or subhuman class, a third gender of “not quite men but undeserving of the title of woman”. does this conflict with the concept of bioessentialism, i.e. that trans women are fundamentally men? i see people say that “transphobes see trans women as men” but from experience that’s not quite true. men receive privilege and rewards for being men that trans women don’t. sorry if this is incoherent im just trying to get a better understanding of it

your understanding is pretty good to be honest. trans women are a separate gender class - an underclass to be specific - and transmisogynists are aware of this, even if they claim to see us as men. does this conflict with bioessentialism? not necessarily, but in some ways it does.

the thing is, though, logical consistency doesn't particularly matter to bigots. that's why basically all of the laws designed to oppress trans women, despite all of the fearmongering about how some technicality in how they're worded will result in them targeting cis women and other tme people, are ultimately only going to be enforced to the fullest extent against trans women. for example, tme people would rightfully be furious if a teenage cis girl was subjected to a genital examination due to the suspicion that she's trans and playing in a high school girls' sport. this would unambiguously be sexual assault, after all. but ultimately, she would be allowed to continue playing (not that she'd likely want to after something so traumatizing, but I digress), and she would probably (not certainly though) have some kind of recourse available to her due to the backlash this incident would cause. if this happened to a teenage trans girl, though, would anyone care? would there be outrage about this? she would have gone through the exact same kind of sexual assault, but the law in that scenario would be functioning exactly as intended. no form of recourse would be available to her. sure, you could make the case that a cis girl might not be able to sue the school district due to financial or other barriers, but a trans girl would have no ground to stand on, legally speaking; she would have broken the law, no matter how unjust and discriminatory the law is.

so violence against trans women broadly isn't recognized as violence against women because we aren't viewed as women. but we're not viewed as men, either. for another example, let's work through the lens of sexual assault again. if a tme person of any gender accuses a trans woman of sexual assault, there is little to no doubt that she will be viewed as guilty automatically, both by other tme people and by the law (the trans panic defense is still legally admissible in many places). in the best case, this will lead to her ostracization and isolation, putting her at higher risk for instability and suicide. in the worst case, this will lead to her imprisonment or death - REGARDLESS of if the accusation is actually true or not. the justification for this is that trans women are secretly perverted men who are trying to prey on innocent cishet people, but the basic idea underlying that premise isn't even something tme people truly believe! if they actually viewed trans women as men, then her guilt wouldn't be quite so certain. men can commit sexual assault every day and face no consequences for it, even when brought to trial with clear and damning evidence, because patriarchy ensures that men won't be held accountable for their actions. of course, this isn't always the case, marginalized men often do face intense scrutiny, many times involving violence. but even adjusting this analysis to account for additional factors such as racism, trans women still receive absolutely none of the same solidarity, leniency, or respect that men of the same demographics as them do.

fundamentally, trans women aren't treated like women or men in society. we're treated as a disposable and undesirable underclass of women that everyone else is free to abuse without consequence. any claims by transmisogynists about what gender they see us as is posturing. we are treated in unique ways as a result of our status as transfeminine. that's exactly what we mean when we talk about how transmisogyny is a unique form of oppression. bioessentialism certainly plays a part, but its contradictions are so obvious that it can only be understood as one piece of a much larger puzzle.

[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.

[asexual-means-no-attraction]

So if asexual means no attraction does that include romantic attraction? What would you call someone who is experiences no romantic attraction but does experience sexual attraction? Your spilt no spilt attraction mobel rule leaves out a lot of people. would someone who experiences sexual attraction but not romcr attraction still be asexual? That would not make any sense because asexual has the word sexual in it imping it only includes no sexual attraction not no romantic attraction. Also why would someone who has only experienced sexual attraction once in their life or once every 5 years not be asexual? 99% of the time they are completely asexual. Why would they want to label based on that one 1% of sexual attraction and or activity. Forcing labels on people doesn't make sense. There is nothing wrong with non sam aces or black stripe aces but there is no need to spread hate hiding as your opinion. Sexual attraction and romantic attraction are fundamentally different. I feel sexual attraction to people that if I dated or kisses them outside of sex I would be grossed out. I don't see the problem with labeling both sexual and romantic attraction. Whenever I come out I say I'm aromantic but not asexual. That right there is using the spilt attraction model. Also sexualies and genders are meant for the person who labels themselves. Not everyone can or wants to come out. Queer identity don't need to be broad because sometimes they aren't made to share. I am not openly aromantic at my school because it's none of their business.

I'm not trying to send hate I'm just confused.

Okay. I've answered this so many times and linked to it so many times and yet no one actually reads my shit. I am not mad at you or anything, its just frustrating. I'm just gonna list out a few points real quick and leave it at that.

-gray areas exist within any label. They NEED to exist. And its good that they do. Because no one will ever perfectly fit into any box, and the encouragement to explore is what gray area allows. It also takes into account varied life experiences and other personal identities. Trying to identify your attraction to be hyper specific makes it harder for gray area to exist. For gray area to function correctly, terms need to be broad.

This gray area is why someone who only experiences attraction once every 5 years can still fall under asexual. They could also fall under not asexual. The gray area allows them that choice. But if we were to use microlabels and the SAM it would involve hyper analyzing that attraction and causing more boxes for the person to fit into.

-sexuality does not mean sex. Thats... very odd of you to say? I mean, the community gets enough hate as 'sex perverts' as it is just for people to claim the word 'sexuality' means specifically sex. Bisexual does not mean sex with everyone. It means attraction to everyone. Attraction is a feeling you have towards someone. Sex is an act. They aren't the same. Not every crush you have will have you feeling horny, nor will they all have you feeling romantic. The attraction stays the same, the actions you wish to do with them do not. It's very important that you realize that. Asexuality is not the lack of sex, just like bisexual isnt the abundance (I mean it could be for any random individual person but not on the whole lol). Its about attraction. End of.

-You can't meaningfully separate sexual and romantic attraction. Nor can you meaningfully separate them from platonic attraction. All forms of attraction leave room for gray area, for overlap. Because we are capable of loving the same person on so many different levels. By trying to seperate them, you are pulling apart and creating boxes that are impossible to truly fit into. Attraction is attraction. Why make a million and one different boxes when you can just let yourself be in a broad label and experiences far more?

-More directly for the SAM there are a few things that just... don't work:

1. Is it a descriptor or a sexuality? A sexuality tells you 'who' someone is attracted to. That's it. Nothing else. Do you like one gender, no gender, or more than one?

A descriptor talks about 'what' you want to do with someone or 'how' you experience your sexuality. You like men, want to date, but don't like sex. Or you like men, want sex, but not to date. Or any other combination.

With the SAM people treat asexuality as both a seperate sexuality and a descriptor. To the point where someone telling me they are asexual doesnt mean anything at all. With all the various ways to describe one's preferences, the single word asexual could mean dating is on the table, or off. Or that sex is on the table or off. It could mean we need to be friends for a week or for a few years. It could mean no hugs, but other affections might be alright. It could mean once I show attraction back, you'll lose interest, or you'll never even think of me till I express myself first.

The point of a sexuality label is to just give a broad idea of 'who' someone likes. And if you are using the SAM you are unable to do that with the word asexual on it's own. There isnt even a gray area involved, because there is no area to be gray in the first place.

2. This also leaves room for change. As what you want in a relationship can actually change. However, 'who' you like does not. The SAM allows people to change their sexuality as they grow. This has and will continue to lead to homophobic ideas of 'forcing the gay' out of people. Sexuality doesnt change. That's a massive point of our movement. We physically can't change, this is who we are, and we deserve to be ourselves. Which is underdermined by people within our own community encouraging people to change their label and sexuality when ever they want cuz 'none of it is real/matters.'

3. It can't be limited to asexuality. You can divide any sexuality up using the split attraction model to describe how you experience your attraction. I have seen people do it. And this again, turns asexuality away from being able to function as a sexuality in its own right. Just saying its only for asexuality doesnt mean anything. There simply isnt enough to show how only asexuality can be divided up like that.

4. It just keeps going. As I said above, you never actually know what someone means when they say they're asexual. And once you start having to use 5 different 'sexualities' within the SAM to describe yourself-- then the labels become obsolete. They are only a few labels because they are supposed to be easily remembered. If I need to look up what your sexuality means, then it's gone too far.

Cuz the SAM has so many microlabels tied into it now, that you can't pull it apart.

Going further, that's also why you end up with asexuality being used as a descriptor so often. 'Lesbian asexual' for example. Asexuality is a descriptor to show how a person experiences their lesbian attraction. Its no longer its own identity and makes the sexuality by itself have no real meaning (see previous points).

I personally think asexuality should be a term in its own right. Which means it can't help describe 'how' someone experiences attraction. It just means the lack of attraction.

5. A big part of our activism is resources. Putting money towards helping people within specific groups. If there are a million and one labels, it becomes very hard to give out proper funding. And trying to give help towards specific asexual issues in a broad sense would be impossible due to all the different meanings of asexual (thus different needs). Even without funds, just an asexual support group would have issues since the members really wouldn't be able to relate in terms of sexuality due to all the different meanings of their identities.

6. Check out my FAQ. But a massive concern of mine is asexuals who experience no sexual attraction, having sex. This causes a massive amount of mental health issues. I have sources from actual asexuals in my FAQ on that. You just gotta find it (and I gotta organize it). But this is usually pressured onto people due to the SAM.

7. I'd argue the SAM forces labels onto people more than broad terms do.

-In terms of your last point of things not needing to be broad cuz they dont need to be shared. I'd again point out, you're discussing preferences. From what you said it sounds like you are fine with sex, but not dating. Thats a descriptor, which is fine. But its not a sexuality. Its a preference. You still experience attraction, you just dont care to date. I was the opposite for a while too. And the only people with whom your descriptors matter is yourself and any possible partners.

So you're right. They are personal. But there doesnt need to be a million and one terms to describe how you experience attraction or what you want in a relationship. And they certainly shouldn't be called a sexuality. Its good to know what you want/need in a relationship. But trying to label and box up each part of it is limiting yourself far more than a broad term ever will. Descriptors are such a personal experience, which is why they can't easily translate into large communities, labels, or activism. So why label and box it up?

I hope... some part of that made some sort of sense for you. A little bit longer than indended but 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️. I always tend to write a lot lol. Ain't proof reading as always, sorry not sorry.

[f0xy5o1]

Incredibox OC post!!

First is Serve

Serve is a Sepbox OC

She’s an Abyssal (gender type unspecified for now) who works as The Queen and The Master’s loyal servant. Despite her status, she’s still trusted as a member of the royal court and valued for her work. She is also periodically tasked to watch over Edgar and Stargazer and has grown fond of the two. She’s especially smitten with Stargazer and finds herself hiding whenever he looks her way. But still, she’s determined to catch his attention and will sometimes leave small folded paper stars with cute messages inside them for him to find. He has no idea who’s been leaving them behind but, part of Serve hopes he never finds out.

(Btw thank you @multicrazygummybears for helping me with the outfit)

Next is Alma

(Warning for slight body horror(?) and stitches)

Alma is an Orin Ayo OC

You ever heard of Theseus' paradox? It goes, “If you replace every part of an object, is it still fundamentally the same object?” This was a paradox experiment that the cult wanted to play around with. If you took one brain and then built an entirely new body out of other parts, is it still considered the same person? Patches of skin from different people, organs taken from different bodies, only the hair, brain, and part of the face was preserved from the original base. The cult also wondered what the ferrofluid would even do to this reconstructed amalgamation, would it still function like a normal human body?

The answer is, absolutely not. Alma is a Frankenstein’s monster experiment gone terribly wrong. The organs she was given all come from different bodies with the exception of her brain. This means that there are moments where personality traits from the other bodies bleed into her own behaviors (reference to a real phenomenon that happens with transplant patients). She often will contradict her own actions and behaviors, making her extremely unstable and unpredictable. She’s described her brain as “fully functional with small gaps that don’t feel like my own own actions. Like there’s something forcing me to behave differently.” The ferrofluid given to resurrect her new body definitely doesn’t help either. She’s quite literally on the verge of tearing at the seams every second she’s alive.

[talenlee]

What Disgusts Jod?

Hey, you know, in the Locked Tomb, is Jod an ally?

SPOILER WARNING: If you’ve read the books you know this question is deliberately stupid and if you don’t see that sentence and know why it’s funny I asked it, you probably will learn something about the books you didn’t already know. I figure if you’re say, halfway through Harrow the Ninth, you may want to hold off on this question.

CONTENT WARNING: We’re talking about queerness in the universe of the Locked Tomb, which means talking about some of the genocide stuff there.

Okay, so straight up, Jod has sex with two people in the series who have different genders to one another. At the same time. Like, dude makes out with a dude and a girl and then a threesome ensues and it’s just part of the story, because this is a normal book series. Asking if he’s queer is a non-starter, he absolutely is. That’s a given fact.

The thing is, there are plenty of people who aren’t allies. Ally is a term we throw around a lot these days like it’s a category of Near Queer But Not Actually, which I guess it needs because there needed to be a term for people who didn’t want to put on some colours while still flying the flag. You know, a straight person who wants to make it clear they’re not an asshole so they dedicate themselves to the task of Being An Ally or declaring themselves an Ally. It’s a complicated term to relate to because in my opinion, Allyship is not about things you know and do but a position you’re willing to take. ‘Cos like, if you’re an Ally, if you’re in the alliance, then you need to be part of that alliance, and that allliance?

There are a lot of gay guys who aren’t allies. There are a lot of bi guys who aren’t allies, ‘cos allyship is about more than being included in the list of acronyms. Famously, there have been a lot of guys in positions of power in the history of the world who have in fact worked against the alliance because they prefer the power and hate their peer group. Check out Roy Cohn’s story sometime.

The origin point for all this was that I got thinking about models of morality that care about matters of principle versus matters of disgust. Most people make moral judgments off disgust, not because they’re bad people but because it’s a powerful default and our society does a lot to code things it considers unethical as disgusting, and things that aren’t disgusting as not unethical. Employers stealing money from their workers is just a mistake or a misfiling or an oopsie, but workers stealing from their employees are slimy or sneaky or greasy or dirty. They’re probably going to use it to make drug pregnancies or something. From there I thought about the things in the universe of The Locked Tomb that might reflect on what we could deduce that Jod thinks of as disgusting, and it turns out it’s a short list. Jod thinks defying Jod is disgusting and everything else is… y’know, tolerable. We’ll get around to it.

I think it’s interesting to consider then the morality of this necromantic universe is a man shaped by our society, given freedom to operate how he wants, and yet still a creature shaped by his experiences in our world. I think it’s very reasonable to imagine that, originally, Jod wasn’t particularly queer, and that his queerness transpired over time as he faced down an eternal reality stretching out in front of him.

It’s a kind of question about what you think human minds do when confronted with infinity. It’s not uncommon for religious perspectives I’m familiar with to think that there’s a sort of perfected, absolute mind in the core of how your mind functions, and that version of who you are is kind of fundamentally capable of existing timelessly. That’s a vision of the mind that also sees it as disconnected from the material considerations of the meat that makes up our bodies: the idea that in heaven, for example, people aren’t autistic or disabled any more, which is one of those ideas that betrays a concept at the heart of faith where there are certain people and ways people exist that are wrong, and disordered, and need to be cleaned up.

In some cases, this is a thing that works out okay because, y’know, I don’t imagine people who lose legs wouldn’t like to have a leg back, but the idea of a perfectly ordered person that we’re all paperjam prints of is both very Modern Christian, and also, kinda deeply messed up. It’s something that The Locked Tomb even interrogates, with the conception of the soul (a thing that carries a sort of fundamental you-ness that doesn’t even necessarily care about your body), and yet the way that the soul is influenced by the the physical and material elements of the brain (such as the distortions in Harrow’s brain that speak to her schizophrenia, which is connected to the body and not necessarily the soul). I’ve talked about this before, in the way that The Locked Tomb considers dualism. It’s this idea of the soul as a non-bodied version of the person that comes to bear in the conception of how Jod handles being eternal.

How much of Jod is the way he was brought up?

Jod is ten thousand years old, he is ancient beyond human conception, but he is still recognisably and familiarly Just A Dude. Jod is a dude who is endowed by nature with immense importance but by social expectation the role of Guy Who Sucks. By watching Jod in the story, especially how he tries to explain himself and justify the way he did, you know, genocides, it’s clear that there is an attempt to at least project a vision of being An Actual Person, that the eternity of him was still marked in places that may result in being, oh, say, pretty reasonably a 40 year old in the 2020s who maybe at some point was really heavily into Homestuck.

If we assume Jod’s a person and Jod’s able to maintain some sense of continuity of being a person like we’re familiar with them over that lengthy a period of time, then, if there’s an eternity to him, then it’s reasonable to expect that whatever we see of Jod’s sexuality, it’s something that he was always at least a little bit built on there, built on what he was and always thought. Not saying he was always all over the place like that, indeed the only vision we get of his prior life is a bit low on the hot sexy times. Then again, counterpoint, most people who run sex cults don’t describe them as sex cults, because they want to play down the sex cult angle.

Does Jod feel shame like that?

The world Jod runs is pretty creepy and horrifying. It has, functionally, feudalism and lorded monarchy. It’s a place where a replication of the Catholic church stands by to safeguard a monument to his sins, where the greatest force in the universe is all turned on the task of killing the descendents of people he’s mad at, and in the context of the society he shapes and rules, the idea that the Blood of Eden don’t deserve genocide because they’re descended from people, some of whom definitely deserved some murders. The moral framework of Jod’s world is a great example of a fascist state, or what Plato considered as an ideal society overseen by a philosopher-king. The whole of power is filtered up to one person, who considers their job to be the task of being the ruler, and therefore, the whole of the society’s best behaviour is a reflection of that Philosopher King.

And of course, as with anyone else who contemplates this model outside of Plato’s ideal of hey, just always get a good Philosopher king, the whole of The Locked Tomb is about what if you get an eternal Philosopher King who’s a guy who sucks?

This is a world built out of this man’s disgusts. Its hatred of beaurocracy, its distrust of failsafes, its demand of rituals – you know, if people would just do things the way they’re supposed to be done and all of it through an impenetrable fog of what satisfies his emotional perspective. And he wants to fuck people of all sorts of genders, so the world shaped by his wants, his personal reactions to right and wrong, and what power permits him to do and demand. He is allowed to do the things he can do because he has the power to do it and in his society, that attitude of power flows downhill. It’s fascism, even though he’s queer.

Which, you know, this all works out like oh, hey, diversity win, this tyrannical Catholic abomination against all life is a pansexual man of colour! We love, as it were, to see it.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[papirouge]

Not here to debate with you about the ethics of abortion, but I don't think having a phobia of pregnancy is a moral failure. It's extremely harsh on your body and many women do suffer complications in childbirth. I don't know what pro lifers want people with pregnancy phobias to do. Like, do you guys want to forcibly impregnate them anyway to fulfill their WoManLy DuTiEs? Good luck making that work.

Besides, people who don't want kids shouldn't breed anyway.

There's a difference between a phobia and being straight up delusional and offensive.

To give you an example ; it's like people who have a phobia of sharks and say "their teeth are scary, I don't like their shape, their eyes, their wide mouth, etc" OK ✅

And those who are like : "sharks are disgusting creatures from hell and should all be killed" That's not ok, delusional and lowkey psychopathic.

Sorry but as a woman, i'm not going to let crazy self hating women mock and attack my biology out of their mental illness. That's not a phobia when you feel entitled to diss other humans being entire biology, with whom they were naturally born with. They're litterally calling innocent babies "sreeching gremlin" I DARE YOU to say that's not some sign of sociopathy.

And it wouldn't be so much annoying it it didn't came from the same crowd of so called "feminists" who pretend fighting for women to "love themselves in their natural state". Gurl, shut up, you HATE yourself and what your body can do. You'd rather mutilate yourself (while mocking TRA doing so to change gender) than life with a functioning reproductive system so much you're scare of getting pregnant. That's CRAZY and thats how bad as women removing their breast or moids cutting their peepees. I want people to start respecting their GOD GIVEN body for once and stop mutilating themselves over narcissism, fear, or "phobia".

At least redpiller moids have more legitimacy to mock women bodily functions because they don't have none, so they're not marking against their own side. It's crazy how on so many level redpiller moids are way more strategic, clever and cohesive in their train of thoughts compared to radfem. They hate women, and admit to only like *that part* for sex - but you'll NEVER.EVER hear them make fun of male biology like feminists do. Because they are way more protective of their gender rep than feminists are. Let that sink in.

And please, you guys need to stop with that borderline cumbrain creepy obsession with imagining people being out on the hunt to force preg women.... Beside rapists, NOBODY is forcing you to get pregnant. We are nobodies from the internet saying shit. The Handmaid's Tale is a BOOK. (I always found very ironic how the same radfem who made fun of Harry Potter stans are literally doing the same thing, making one (1) book storyline the fundamental basis of their world worldview - but I digress).

And no one is denying that pregnancy isn't hard on the body. By compelling people to have responsible and selective sex, pro lifers are more than anyone else conscious of how serious pregnancy is, and the toll it takes on the female body. However, maybe I would take a lil bit more your concern for complications related to pregnancy if pro choicers weren't constantly downplaying the health consequences of abortion and other (hormonal) birth control systems... It's funny how you'll act like pregnancy, a totally natural function our body was literally wired for, is violence against our body, but not....chemically or surgically violently halting a biological synchronicity to forcefully remove/expel body parts.... #abortionistmath

I feel like we're in a timeline where we're so far in the pendulum that went against the lalala glamorization of pregnancy (that's existed since a LOT of time tbh) that now it's trendy to HATE pregnancy, and pass it off as this traumatic almost torture experience that HAS to be avoided at any cost...

Me think many of you sound lowkey mentally ill (it's interesting you're talking about "phobia" because phobia are actual....illness that need to be cured lol That's not...a normal state of mind) and need to learn to be normal about pregnancy. I know I may sound harsh but I'm tired of grown adults getting offended over normal shit when they just need to see a psychologist lol

[intersexfairy]

When I read feminist philosophy, I encountered a suggestion to look at human sex as a spectrum, with certain characteristics generally appearing together placing you closer to one end or another. Some of them encourage each other biologically, some socially/culturally. So for instance, higher levels of estrogen might encourage bigger breasts, thus they generally cluster, also with having a uterus and less facial hair, and identifying as a woman. Having many of the male cluster characteristics would put you further to the male end of the spectrum. This stayed with me. What I found appealing about this is that it doesn't put intersex people in a third, outsider category, nor separates male and female into fundamentally different opposites, it's just a bit more of this or a bit more of that. The other thing is that it recognizes sex changes, because you can acquire many of the cluster characteristics, for instance through hrt.

I'm not sure if I'm doing it justice here, but I am curious about what other people think??

yes that is very correct (at least as far as i'm aware)! and the idea of sex as a spectrum that all of us fall somewhere on is the crux of a lot of intersex activism. it shows that we're unfairly singled out and socially marked as wrong, mutated freaks of nature. when, in reality, we're just as natural as everyone else. we just have a different configuration that causes our sex traits to display themselves differently than others, or for our bodies to function differently.

it's the same core idea as in gender as a spectrum - even two non-queer women of similar status in society will have different experiences of their gender, similarly to how their bodies wouldn't work exactly the same in regards to hormones, reproductive ability, etc.

[mossbark]

You are defining "gender affirming care" and "care trans people receive" and the people on the post are defining it as "care which is sought out and used to affirm one's gender".

You are correct that Viagra and HRT for menopausal cis woman are not medically exactly equivalent to HRT for trans people, but that is not the point being argued. The point being argued is that cis people also take medical actions that are primarily to make them feel better in their gender.

It is similar to the common point that a cis woman with a moustache who does laser hair removal for it is doing so because a moustache does not fit her idea of her own gender presentation; this is the same reason a trans woman might get laser hair removal.

"The point being argued is that cis people also take medical actions that are primarily to make them feel better in their gender."

The point I am actually making is that cis people are not taking Viagra or estrogen to primarily affirm their gender. They are taking them to correct symptoms of physiological dysfunction. This isn't a hard distinction to grasp.

"I can't maintain an erection, which makes sexual intimacy difficult if not impossible. (And/or) I also have concerns about high blood pressure." Viagra.

"I am suffering from fatigue, hot flashes, hair loss, osteoporosis, insomnia, unstable mood, and pain during sexual intercourse due to my body's natural hormonal cycle being discontinued as I age." Estrogen for menopause. Also, for what it's worth, there are numerous physiological risks associated with being estrogen-deficient long-term, including an increased risk of dementia.

I think it is utterly out of touch, and uncompassionate, to completely ignore all these symptoms so these treatments can be framed as being about gender identity instead of physical day-to-day functioning. Again, I cannot overstate, I am in favor of gender-affirming therapies for those who want them, but it is crucial to understand why it isn't fair, accurate, or helpful to declare apples are really oranges because they're both round fruits. Overlap can exist between treatment outcomes, but that doesn't make the treatment the same.

While I agree cis women, trans women, and anyone else who gets LHR (edit: Lazer hair Removal) likely do so for the same reasons, you're again comparing apples to oranges by saying medical intervention is similar to a cosmetic procedure. You can also get into a discussion that goes beyond the scope of this conversation about drawing the line between personal aesthetic and gender presentation, which I would argue is what most cis people are actually experiencing in these given contexts as opposed to gender dysphoria. A woman who feels ugly because her skin is wrinkling and her hair is falling out is experiencing body dysmorphia, a diagnostic category that can overlap with gender dysphoria, but also includes eating disorders. If this same women declared she felt like less of a woman because she doesn't feel beautiful, you should probably have the empathy to understand she isn't declaring she doesn't truly feel misaligned with her gender identity, but is lamenting her appearance. These are fundamentally different experiences that due to the limitations of language, may be expressed verbally in similar ways. Also, I think the discomfort *most* presented in the initial argument is wildly overstated.

My biggest contention with everyone who has engaged with my perspective is that they are prioritizing gender expression, which is reflective of their own lived experiences, over the realities of these given diagnoses. It amounts to speaking over the lived experience of patients. To put it in perspective for you, how does this argument break down if a trans woman has ED, but wants to have PIV sex with her partner? What if a transgender man, who realized his identity later in life and does not want to seek transition, suffers from osteoporosis after entering menopause, and opts for estrogen therapy to reduce bone loss? In these situations, the argument breaks down and is no longer about affirming gender. The ultimate point I am making, simply put, is that treatments meant to restore bodily function are not the same as gender-affirming care because of coincidental overlap. The targeted symptoms are different, and it is a blatant misrepresentation to claim that cis people seek out these treatments primarily to feel better aligned with their gender.

Its popular on this website to demonize the fields of psychology and psychiatry, because I suppose they can feel restrictive to people who are untrained and uneducated on why we abide by the DSM and other treatment guidelines. This conversation is a perfect example of why it requires a master's or above to even get a job in the field. It requires critical thinking, good judgement, scientific integrity, and a solid understanding to tease out the nuances of why one diagnosis over another. I think it has become common to assume bigotry is at the root of every distinction, and sometimes it is, but this particular subject is not one to take at face value.

Hopefully this clarifies why I think this conversation is getting redundant, because at the end of the day, it's an argument the OP admitted is based on their personal politics and desire to push social boundaries rather than an understanding of how the human body works.

TL;DR not everything is the same and it doesn't have to be.

[biracy]

Trying to word this in a way that fully encapsulates how I feel so bear with me... I guess I wanna start with: I don't actually believe in "gendered socialization", both in that I do not believe that all members of a given gender, across cultural, racial/ethnic, religious, economic, etc. lines will have the same social experiences AND in that I do not believe that trans women are completely treated like men nor trans men completely treated like women. However, within the many attempts to utilize psychiatry for transphobia, there is a tendency to rely on the myths of the "female and male brains", which supposedly function completely differently from each other and whose differences nearly outweigh their similarities ("men are from Mars, women are from Venus"). Especially when working in the abstract, talking about some kind of Hypothetical trans person whose psyche Could exist, transphobes (terfs and their ilk especially are fond of this, I find) insist that trans women have "inherently male brains" and that trans men have "inherently female brains." I think that due to psychiatry's history in how it regards purported "males" and purported "females", it's easy to see how "trans gay guys exist because little girls read too much yaoi" is mostly characterized through language of "social contagion" rather than of "psychological fetishism" or whatever. "Women" (or anyone who has a, heavy quotes here, "female brain") are sometimes seen as unable to have fetishes or paraphilias or whatever overall (due to a laundry list of reasons involving the historical perception of women's sexualities). This is a favorite talking point of terfs, who insist that women who participate in kink subcultures cannot Actually be enjoying it sexually, but have been tricked by men (who DO have the fetishes, "paraphilias", etc) into participating for the sole pleasure of their male partners, it's one of many ways in which terf ideology is fundamentally misogynistic. Gay trans men, who are treated as women in the abstract of transphobic psychiatry, therefore, are perceived as being "socialized into" idealizing gay male sexual activity, sometimes even "contaminated" by yaoi or BL or whatever, and that is why they transition. The distinction between "social contagion" and "innate fetishism/delusion/whatever" is a pretty notable distinction between how this kind of transphobia manifests against trans men vs trans women, and I'm not trying to claim one is better or worse than the other, they're both reductive and misogynistic and transphobic in their own ways. Idk I don't think I'm As clear as I hoped I could be but I think u all should understand where I'm at

[cruelsister-moved2]

i also don’t think ‘security in your masculinity’ functions as a cure for violence against women. in fact, the cure is (put simply) compassion and empathy for women, the recognition that women are human beings, which is something masculinity is explicitly constructed against. because masculinity isn’t a biological reality, it’s a social construct defined against a feminine ‘other’ and associated with power. traits/behaviours/embodiment that one culture and time period associates with masculinity are associated with femininity in another.  In that context ‘security in your masculinity’ means... security that you don’t have to behave like [insert racialised/class-prejudiced portrayal of stereotypes male violence here] to preserve the privileges you expect to be surrounded by as a member of the dominant gender class. the irony in the ‘secure in my masculinity’ brag is that it makes the men with genuine cause to fear for their place in masculine hegemony (disabled men, gay men, trans men, men of colour, jewish men, immigrant men, working class men, etc) more of a threat than the men who are most secure within it. and now, under this framework, striving for inclusion within the privileged class, fighting to maintain its definitions, and subscribing to its values, is... feminist praxis?  and of course, in all of this, men’s experiences are centralised in the conversation of violence against women. violence against women becomes a tribal issue between groups of men, a.k.a 'feminist’ men are taking fundamentally the same perspective as the 3750 year old code of hammurabi.

[genderkoolaid]

re: tme discourse. did these people forget about gnc men?? gnc men are ABSOLUTELY affected by transmisogyny despite not being transfem. but that's not convenient for the argument so it doesn't matter (sarcasm)

I mean they literally do not care. The answer to this will always be "that's just misdirected transmisogyny, its not the same". I've seen people claim that homophobia towards queer men is essentially transmisogyny-lite (and the two are connected but imo its about the misandry/antimasculism directed at queer people perceived at transgressing male gender roles, and I have a feeling TME/TMA proponents would Not like that interpretation lmao).

The thing is I do understand part of the use for TME/TMA. In that transfems are the targets of transmisogyny, tend to be the ones most aware of it because of this, and therefore transfem voices should be central to its discussion*. But thats true of every single form of bigotry, and we don't use this "affected/exempt" system for literally anything else. Because its entirely unhelpful to imply that who can be affected by a bigotry is based on their identity. Not only can you be targeted for the wrong reasons, but it can be physically and mentally damaging and occur often enough to be a fundamental part of your life experience. And this is why I mean that "misdirected bigotry" is never used for anything other than possessiveness over being the victims of a certain type of bigotry. Its only ever used to tell other people that their victimization was less harmful and that they do not have a right to speak about that form of bigotry, creating a dichotomy between "real victims" and "fake victims", which alienates a large portion of the people being directly affected by that bigotry.

I try to do the opposite on this blog: while transmascs should be centered in discussions of transandrophobia, I actively encourage anyone to discuss their experiences with it, or antimasculism/misandry, or exorsexism, or anything I talk about! Because it helps us learn more about the functions of bigotry, and creates solidarity between all victims regardless of who they are. People who otherwise would not have had their pain validated (bc they are not in communities where it is addressed in the first place) are helped, and we get so many more comrades in our fight! And we can be open and supportive of non-transmasc transandrophobia (or non-transfem victims of transmisogyny) without decentering transamscs(/transfems) from the discussion.

The reason why creating this victim binary is important for TME/TMA is because imo these acronyms cannot be divorced from the baeddelist idea that transmisogyny is the worst form of transphobia/oppression, and non-transfems are oppressors of transfems... and therefore cannot be allied with, or can only be allied with if they act subservient**. Its fundamentally tied to the idea that other trans people have systematic power over transfems (& the sister belief of "transphobia isnt real its all transmisogyny" and "transfems are the only real trans people"). Which is antithetical to transunity. The belief that transmascs/afab trans people(/maybe amab trans people depending on whos talking about who) have an oppressor/oppressed relationship with transfems should be a major red flag; it's the source of a lot of people's feelings of not having the authority to talk about transphobia or transness in general. It's the source of uncomfortable dynamics between transmascs&fems where transmascs are expected to be differential to transfems and see themselves as oppressors obliged to "give back" to their victims. It's the source of transmascs being told they aren't in danger and have an obligation to serve as human shields for transfems, which puts can put people in real, serious danger.

ANYWAYS. My point is that there is no group you can pull out to prove TME/TMA proponents wrong. Even intersex people are either completely ignored, demonized, or heavily criticized and nitpicked when talking about how this binary is intersexist, and same with black women, despite intersex cis black women being a main target of a lot of transmisogyny. The fact that non-AMAB transfems experience transmisogyny will not do anything to make them change their minds because it can and will always be labeled "misdirected" and therefore insignificant.

*before anyone says some shit: transfems helped create transunity, many transunitist are explicitly following the beliefs of transfems they know and have learned from. anti-transunitist transfems are not the only ones to have valid opinions on how transmisogyny works. stop erasing the work transfems have put into constructing transunity theory. its okay to admit you disagree with transunitist transfems you don't have to act like they don't exist while harassing them off the internet

**no this is not about all transfems. there are many transfems outspokenly against this & many transfems who have been hurt by this. it is not transmisogynistic to address the real, serious harm certain transfems have done to trans people, which (as can be read abt in the link) very much includes abusive behavior towards transmascs which (imo) mirrors a lot of the rhetoric I see online about how "TMEs" should behave.

[jinxpologist]

your gender rantings are so real and also interesting to me because i have like. an equal and opposite experience with being bigender. like i don’t like the term nonbinary for myself either but that’s because it’s important to my identity that i Am the binary [mainly bc of big lifelong gender feelings caused by growing up intersex blah blah whatever whatever]. it’s honestly kinda weird to me that there’s an assumption that everyone under the umbrella of “nonbinary” would be ok with being individually referred to as nonbinary

heyyy gender opposites!! it's always so interesting to me to hear from bigender people too, because i feel like we go through that same battle of having to fight the binary. one of the fundamental assumptions of the binary is that male and female are polar opposites, as are masculinity and femininity, with no gradient in between. you are or you aren't.

this is. troublesome for a lot of people, but the particular way that both bigender people (talking man and woman bigender here) and agender people fundamentally shirk that is interesting. because the binary functions on the ideas that 1) you cannot escape and 2) you have to "pick" one gender/sex/presentation and stick to it.

so i think it's really cool to compare our experiences!!! reading chameleon, chameleon part 2 by catmask on here was genuinely a really crazy experience because i could see a lot of myself in the story of forsaking part of your identity in order to let the other part of yourself be seen. i relate to people of pretty much any gender and want to explore all types of presentation, and trying to reconcile that with the pressure to "just choose" (plus dysphoria) is sometimes a bit too much.

there's also the differences, like you said, and there's really nothing to say there because it's obvious what they are lmfao, but i salute every multigender soldier out there for being strong as hell against people who are literally incapable of being normal about any trans person they don't understand.

also, yeah, it's really silly that a lot of people have the idea that because you're technically under an umbrella term, that that's how you identify yourself. i might call myself nonbinary for convenience sometimes, or when i'm feeling particularly in favor of that term, but overall i'm just agender. and being told i can only be male, female, or nonbinary is weird. because i'm not really any of those.

so i definitely get you there. especially because nonbinary is a bit controversial for some people, because it's a term that's named after what it's not. good umbrella term, but not for everyone!!

[the-feminist-philosopher]

Debunking the Trans-Exclusionary's Pseudoscience: a thread

Yes, all embryos start with the same template. No, this template is not "female." Ovary and testis development require complex genetic regulation. Neither can really be said to occur by "default."

"We have just begun to glimpse into the mechanisms underlying ovarian development. Convincing evidence challenges us to reconsider the existing paradigm that describes ovarian development as a default system. The default concept was first proposed in the early 1950s when Jost performed the groundbreaking experiments to demonstrate mechanisms of sex differentiation of reproductive tracts (Jost, 1947, 1953, 1970). The term “default” was not originally intended to describe the developmental status of the ovary. Instead, it is referred to the female reproductive tract or the Mullerian duct based on the fact that the female reproductive tract forms in both XX and XY individuals in the absence of gonads. Indeed, now it has become evident that early ovarian development is an active process involving intrinsic cell fate decisions and complex crosstalks between germ cells and somatic cells. Most intriguingly, the appearance of testicular structures in XX individuals where Sry and its downstream components are absent..." -Yao 2005

Sex determination in mammals involves the development of a bipotential gonad into either a testis or ovary. Studies have suggested that at the start of mammalian reproductive development, both male, sperm-carrying reproductive tracts and female, egg-delivering reproductive tracts are present. Depending on the sex of the embryo, one set of tracts usually disintegrates as development proceeds.

Ovarian development is centered on beta-catenin protein stabilization by WNT4 secretion, and this is believed to inhibit the expression of SOX9 (which is pivotal in male sexual development).

Do not let them fool you. Ovarian development is a very active process. Nothing can be said to happen by "default."

Continuing to spread this narrative actually contributes to spreading the patriarchal idea of "male" as inherently active and "female" as inherently passive.

Sex differentiation is a feature of the patriarchy that posits that “men are men” and “women are women” and the two ought be and fundamentally are separate from each other. It is responsible for the social prescription that each group must stay within certain bounds of public and private life as well as certain bounds of behavior and certain bounds of presentation. One such social prescription is assigning to men the role of Actor and Aggressor and to women the role of the passive Recipient of aggression. This gendered association decreases the perception of women as empowered agents (and even human). This social prescription also encourages men to act on behalf of women from making financial or relationship decisions, to deciding when and where and how a woman has sex, to the definition and social prescription of "woman" and "female," and to the reproductive alienation of those assigned female.

Please, for the love of fuck, do not spread the myth that the vagina has a natural spermicide. Does a "female" system cull most sperm? Yes. Because our species developed the ability to cull potentially "off" offspring that would be detrimental to species survival. In evolution, if it hurts, it goes. If it's disadvantageous, but has limited benefit, it stays. If it doesn't hurt, it also stays. The two-tailed sperm swimming in circles- for example- isn't staying.

Yes, there are women with immune infertility whose immune system attacks sperm. Yes, white blood cells will kill off lots of sperm. Yes, lots of sperm will literally get "lost" or "caught" in linings. And, yes, lots of sperm die because of the acidity of the vagina. HOWEVER, when the egg follicles mature and prepare for ovulation, the pH of cervical fluid rises, bridging the gap between the acidic vagina and the alkaline sperm. The egg literally releases hormones to better allow for fertilization while the semen forms a gel which provides protection for the sperm from the acidic environment of the vagina. In fact, contractions in the reproductive tract can propel sperm toward the oviducts. And there's also a reason there are about 200 million sperm in a single ejaculation.

The vagina DOES NOT have a built-in spermicide. PLEASE, please, wrap it before you tap it. DO NOT let misinformation like this convince you that your vagina will just kill the sperm and reject any and all pregnancies. The body both helps you get pregnant or helps you avoid it depending on the compatibility or survivability of the sperm and the pregnancy material. If there's something real screwy (including being malnourished), it's not making it. BUT that doesn't mean you CANNOT get pregnant.

SPERM can survive in the female genital tract for up to FIVE whole days. Sperm are very-very tiny and they can, and will, make it. Additionally, bleeding and getting pregnant are not mutually exclusive. You CAN get pregnant while on your period. Don't take risks because of misinformation like this.

I'm scared to know how this person thinks people become pregnant.

I-- didn't even know what to make of this when I read it. What a way to stigmatize female genital tracts as an "other" by describing it as "reptilian." So, I want to take a moment to talk about the vagina dentata and the patriarchal association of women with the monstrous, often snakes or other reptiles.

While not all of them do, many vagina dentata folk tales explicitly articulate male fears of castration in the act of PiV sexual intercourse. These myths will warn of the necessity of violently or forcefully removing the teeth from women’s vaginas to transform her into a nonthreatening sexual partner. In most cases, these myths can be read as the patriarchal attempt to render female sexuality non-threatening and strip it of it's "danger" (temptation) to men. There is one author I remember reading who spoke of a connection between this myth and the practice of FGM and rape epidemics.

These myths seemed to act as a cautionary tale to men to beware where they stick it, least they lose their dick. Unless, they first forcibly broke the teeth (rape) or neutralized the temptation (marriage) or removed a woman's "promiscuousness" (genital mutilation).

The Greek figure of a Gorgon is representative of this concept, as is the mermaid. The "devouring mother" in many religions and mythologies often took the form of a serpent or a snake woman. The fearful aspects of the feminine were also sometimes represented by a woman with a phallus. But, once all her vagina teeth were knocked out by the male hero (sometimes a son), the devouring mother would lose her masculine characterization in these tales, transforming from a Terrible Mother (a manifestation of the Great Mother archetype) to something desirable to men (the Kindly mother). Many of these myths served to portray the feminine as terrifying as well as something negative.

Now, I'm pretty sure that she's referring to the squamous cells, which *look like* fish scales. The only context most people have likely heard this term used is in reference to cancer. For context, it's these thin, flat cells that you likely looked at under the microscope in 9th grade biology class:

These cells are found in the tissues that form the surface of the skin, the passages of the respiratory and digestive tracts, and the lining of the hollow organs of the body (such as the bladder, kidney, and uterus, including the cervix). They can be keratinized or nonkeratinized. Reptile scales are keratinized. No, your genital tract is not "reptilian." It is very much mammalian and human.

Another thing I want to tackle is the teleological argument briefly touched on in this post. Teleology is the idea that something has a telos- a purpose, goal or final end. Evolution does not have a purpose. It makes no conscious decisions or sets any goals. There's no final end to evolution. Our insistence that evolution has an end and an overarching purpose is a remnant of Social Darwinism. Menstruation in mammals has no inherent purpose or end. Menstruating makes no decisions and it sets no goals. A vagina, similarly, has no inherent purpose or end-goal.

When educating people on reproductive tracts, many people may use teleological phrasing, saying that the vagina's purpose is to receive a penis or hold sperm until it can pass into the uterus or provide a passage for childbirth.

Unfortunately, our language is limiting. Because *function* can mean something has a certain *purpose.* So, I want it to be clear that I use "function" to mean something which carries on an action, rather than something with a set objective or end to be attained. In this case, saying that an organ has a function is thus very different from talking about it's purpose. Through evolution, we developed tissues and organs with specialized functions. These organs can carry on specific actions. For a vagina, these actions include 1.) providing passage for blood and mucosal tissue from the uterus, 2.) providing passage for sperm to the uterus, and 3.) providing passage for live birth.

Now, I am being very careful with my language full-well knowing that if I simply say, "The function of a vagina is also to provide passage for live birth," a trans-exclusionary will shoot back, "So, you think the purpose of female organs is to give birth?" This retort, and the fact the featured poster says "[f]ar from every woman gives birth [and] [m]any women have no desire for penetrative sex," makes it clear that "rad fems"- including the featured poster- are making teleological arguments.

Because I am saying that, during the course of evolution, we developed organs that carry on specific actions. I am not saying they were *designed* for a purpose, but that they developed to operate specifically and perform specialized functions. During the course of evolution, we developed kidneys to filter blood of toxins and turn waste into urine. This does not mean the kidneys were planned nor does that mean that a kidney designs to find impurities in our blood. Kidneys do not have a goal or an ambition or an aim.

Their equivocation on "function" and "purpose" serves to hide teleological arguments behind "scientific" sounding language as well as turn their assumption that we're operating with teleological statements around on any dissidents. This way, when someone points out that species developed reproductive tracts which perform reproductive functions, they can accuse you of reducing a woman's "purpose" to childbearing and taking dick.

However, their insistence that *they're* operating only based on "the science" allows them a degree of plausible deniability when women, feminists, and LGBTQ+ activists and allies tell them that their definition of a woman ironically does exactly that: reduces a woman to a reproductive purpose. Women and feminists and queer activists alike have noticed that the transphobe is operating off of teleological assumptions and trying to hide behind science and "biology" to mask this. They recognize that "a woman is an adult human of the sex that can bear offspring and produce ova" is an also an "ought" statement: a woman ought to be someone who bears children and produces eggs.

It might *seem* grammatically declarative. However, when we are naming something, we are also categorizing it, saying it performs at least one function sufficiently enough to meet the requirements of the description, and saying it performs that function well enough to be named one thing instead of another. We are fitting it within certain bounds, and thus giving it social meaning and value.

A mutual (@/dark-and-sparkles) gave this example:

"This is a chair," doesn't simply describe a chair or declare that a chair is present. A chair is an object with a specific form, function, and social meaning; when we are naming something a "chair," we are evaluating it on its ability to serve our purposes as a chair. If it didn't perform these functions well, we either would see it as faulty (another socially loaded description) or wouldn't pick it out as a chair at all."

Making linguistic and categorical distinctions can have teleological implications.

No organ has a primary "purpose." Organs have basic functions and features which operate specifically. So, yah, not every woman will give birth or have penetrative sex. But those social decisions mean absolutely nothing when we're talking about how- during the course of evolution- we developed certain organs to carry on reproductive functions and that these organs carry on these actions in the event of reproduction. These social decisions do mean something, however, if you are addressing a teleological argument that posits that because a female reproductive tract has the capacity for pregnancy, that means it's *purpose* is to produce children.

They're arguing that the *purpose* of the female genital tract is not to produce children because its purpose is instead to pass tissue from the uterus. Neither is correct because organs have no final ends. (And they call themselves monists.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of this section...

I first find it ironic that they spent the paragraphs above arguing that we should not conceptualize a uterus in terms of its fertility and a relationship to sex, only to say that a uterus is essential to one's health in areas such as fertility and sex drive.

Now, I want to be clear that "greater risk" does not me you WILL get dementia or depression or "other serious inflictions" if you have a hysterectomy. Yes, a hysterectomy *may* increase *the risk of* cardiovascular events, certain cancers, the need for further surgery, early ovarian failure and menopause, depression, and dementia. It is important to note that most studies on this examine possible associations, causality, and hypotheses instead of causality. Part of this increase in health risks- like cardiovascular complications, memory complications, and metabolic changes- is hypothesized to have to do with the earlier onset of menopause because some of these potential long-term risks are common with the onset of menopause. Earlier onset of menopause is thought to lead to greater risk. People who start menopause earlier without a hysterectomy as well as people who start their periods later (also not something achieved through surgery), and people with a longer reproductive period also have an elevated risk in many of these same categories.

Absolutely none of these facts "prove" one sex's superiority over the other. Because there is no "superior" sex.

(Also, would the OP take a similar stance on birth control, which women also use to treat similar conditions which a hysterectomy is used to treat? Because birth control carries many of the same health risks. Is the moral here, "Don't undergo treatments if they carry health risks" or have we run into the Raymond effect? Where a "whole" [natural] state is "better" than an "altered" state? So, a hysterectomy would make someone "incomplete"/"broken" and keeping the reproductive trace makes someone "whole" and "complete." Based on the rest of the paragraph and post, I'm guess it's another iteration of Raymond's argumentum ad naturam.)

I also have no idea how any of this relates to challenging ideas of male supremacy. How does "Getting a hysterectomy could be detrimental to your health" combat ideas of male supremacy? Male dominant society is all about creating a system where people with a uterus and ovaries keep them and use them to become mothers. This point is really unrelated to combating those ideas. Does she think arguing that getting a hysterectomy could lead to health problems down the line supports some "power of the uterus" argument? Because a hysterectomy is a medical procedure designed to treat severe and emergency health conditions.

An example: My mother bled every day for months on end with cramping and bleeding so heavy, she was passing out. She asked for a hysterectomy and the first doctor asked "Are you sure. You're young and could have more babies yet." She got an ablation that didn't work. She went to a second doctor who told her that the uterus absolutely needed to come out. The only thing that ended her bleeding was the hysterectomy. When you go to the Mayo Clinic website and they list "heavy periods" as a common reason for a hysterectomy, this is what they mean. They aren't referring to the couple hours you utilize a heating pad or that time you attached a TENS unit to your back for cramping.

Another example: Doctors found an aggressive cancer in my grandmother's reproductive tract. So, she got a hysterectomy. The surgery was effective. From subsequent testing, it seems the cancer did not spread, and so my grandmother is still with us. I'm seeing her for dinner in two days.

These are reasons women get hysterectomies.

So, I don't know why the OP has seemingly taken issue with a medical procedure designed to treat severe medical conditions and problems. Does the issue maybe instead lie with someone like myself who elected to get a hysterectomy because I didn't want the potential to bear offspring? Or does the issue instead lie in someone, again, like myself who gets a hysterectomy for "gender" affirming reasons, namely, to never bleed again? In which case, let's have that conversation about bodily autonomy.

Next, your body does not "fall apart" when you remove your uterus. Do organs shift around? Yes. Does this mean you'll pee more? For a while, yes. Most complications arise not from the mere absence of a uterus, but from damage during the surgery itself. Doctors might nick something, for example. Like with all major surgeries, there is a risk of clotting afterwards. But, no, the uterus does not help hold the body together. Your body will not fall apart in its absence. Unless the OP is talking about a prolapse, which is not caused by a hysterectomy, but a cause for a hysterectomy. A prolapse certainly *will* cause such "serious complications" as fecal incontinence and bladder control issues because other pelvic organs prolapsed too. Is there a risk of prolapse after a hysterectomy? Yes. That risk is some 1%-15%, with the risk being highest in individuals whose hysterectomy was necessitated by a prolapse. In fact, hysterectomy is not a risk factor for prolapse when preoperative prolapse is taken into account.

As for that last point... "women have better cognition and memory than men and their reproductive organs are the reason for that." For a group that claims to reject the idea of "female" and "male" brains, they sure are willing to embrace it. I know that a hysterectomy uniquely impacts spatial memory in rats, but I am unsure whether this holds true for humans too. I also know that high estrogen- a hormone secreted by the ovaries- in older female mice can improve spatial memory consolidation, and that this effect can be weakened by progesterone, but I am unsure whether this holds true for humans too. I do know that in one of our closer evolutionary cousins, the estrogen steroid hormone, Estradiol, enhances "some aspects of spatial working memory in aged monkeys despite many years of estrogenic deprivation." I also know that estrogen increases the risk of breast and uterine cancers.

You can read an overview about the role of sex in memory function here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6028920/. Here's a snapshot of this overview:

I am always cautious to automatically attribute such things as memory to sex difference; to claim that the reason this happens is purely biological. And the reason for that is because I know characteristics considered an inherent and immutable part of sexual dimorphism in humans are physical conditions reinforced by a patriarchal gender system. For example, a woman's weight and height will increase under systems of greater gender equity (There was a study done in Chile on height and greater gender equity and there was a study done in India on weight and gender oppression). I also know that women have a better memory than men in middle age, but decline faster, and it is believed that these difference will shrink in the future because education levels for women have been increasing over the last several decades, leading to higher cognitive reserves and less risk for dementia.

“…there are unnecessary and potentially inaccurate linkages made when binary categories of sex are exclusively drawn on to interpret sex-associated biology. The use of binary categories of sex in this way can inadvertently contribute to the normalization of culturally recognized 'typical’ biologies and undermine capacities to see variation even within these categories defined as 'normal.’ When used in this way, the categories themselves are interpreted as proxy for pathways and thus biological differences are concluded to be 'sex-based,’ as opposed to driven by some other mechanism.”

DuBois, L. Z., & Shattuck‐Heidorn, H. (2021). Challenging the binary: Gender/sex and the bio‐logics of normalcy. American Journal of Human Biology, 33(5), e23623.

One's reproductive organs are not a reason or cause for superiority over the other sex. This is literally just reproducing the exact same forces of socialization that the patriarchy does, something which these women claim to be critical of but then embrace if it means gaining power for themselves.