#gender theory
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
tornad001 · 2 days ago
Text
what do we do if we're gender abolitionists? i feel like the majority of these ppl, without even realizing it or being able to name it as such, have landed on a rather interesting form of gender abolitionism.
forget trans ppl specifically for a sec and think more broadly of queer spaces. if a person who used to be a manly man and is now a girly girl is a woman in the exact same respect as a femboy-turned-butch lesbian is a woman in the exact same respect as a country gal who isn't particularly masc or fem is a woman in the exact same respect as a flamboyant chick who unironically wears drag-queen level makeup everywhere is a woman....
i think the trend ppl find themselves clueing into unconsciously is that the marker "woman" is just so grossly broad as to be meaningless. it doesn't say anything about who u are, what u like or dislike, what causes u support, how u engage with or perceive the world. it doesn't say anything about your relationship to your own sex, sexuality, gender, nothing. what does it actually meaningfully tell you about a person? does it give you insight into their lived experiences? does it even tell u all that much about the roles that've been thrust upon them by the patriarchy?
i get where trans ppl come from emotionally when they want to be validated in their gender, but im not sure that a gender abolitionist understanding of it is compatible with that kind of emotional validity, at least not without some mental acrobatics. is it invalidating to say to a trans woman "you have exactly as much claim to womanhood as everyone else" if they know that u think everyone, man, woman, or other has precisely the same claim to womanhood?
is it that "trans women can ONLY be women in a world where the word 'woman' holds no meaning" or is it that "we live in a world where the word 'woman' holds no meaning... AND trans women are women"? i know some ppl aren't gonna get the difference between those but hopefully the ones i care about understanding it do
as far as i can tell, the only real actual difference between a woman and someone who isn't a woman, is (tautologically) their desire to be associated with the word "woman". its more of a linguistic game than anything else and that's not a reality that a lot of ppl (much less trans ppl) are comfortable with. granted, a lot of them are ok with and in fact revel in that fact (myself among them)
idk just some thoughts i've been having
"Trans women are actually women for real, not in a metaphorical sense, not in a "anyone can be anything" sense, but genuinely actually make more taxonomic sense to classify in the category of women than any other group you could classify them in" is a position you'll find is pretty radical even in queer spaces
52K notes · View notes
typhlonectes · 1 month ago
Text
Tumblr media
12K notes · View notes
whereserpentswalk · 5 months ago
Note
Hi, I saw one of your latest posts talking about the gender "segregation" where you state that women's only spaces shouldn't exist. So, if that was actually real, do you think me, a cis lesbian woman, should I be using a changing room or a bathroom used also by people with penises?
I would feel very uncomfortable being naked near someone who is biologically a male and I have the right to say no, no matter how they react, cis women's feelings matter too and nobody can tell me when I should be uncomfortable, same thing goes for sports, cis women could get physically hurt if a biological male played against them and this had already happened in a school in the US.
This more confirms how you far left activists don't care about us
I do not care about people's disgust when it comes to means of segregation. Do you think that during the 1960s there was no white person who felt uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with someone with dark skin when desegregation hit bathrooms and locker rooms? Do you think there's no white person who feels that way now (hell, a big reason American suberbs are a thing is that it allows white people to live in white only places post civil rights laws)?
How is your desire to feel comfortable through segregation any diffrent? There is a group you feel uncomfortable with in a space so you want it segregated, I suggest you either not use that space or find a way to be more comfortable. Society may have a responsibility for you to be safe, but there is no responsibility for you to feel safe.
And do you think nobody wants to be segregated away from you? You're literally a queer person, there are people who do not want you in public because of the exact same uncomfortablity with you. You probably have way more in common with trans people than most cis people do. If many people were allowed to remove what makes them uncomfortable from society, you would be forced into the closet. This isn't a hypothetical, the same people pushing for removal of trans people from society have same sex relationships as their next target.
Uncomfortablity is not something society can or should protect you from.
953 notes · View notes
shamebats · 10 months ago
Text
"I want to be really clear about this because some people have interpreted transmisogyny to mean trans male and trans masculine people don't experience misogyny, which is something I've never said and obviously oppositional sexism is a form of sexism and obviously trans male and trans masculine people experience that"
- Dr. Julia Serano, author of Whipping Girl and coiner of the term transmisogyny on the It Could Happen Here podcast, episode "Whipping Girl, The Book That Changed Everything ft. Dr. Julia Serano"
1K notes · View notes
whitehairedanimeboyfriend · 9 months ago
Text
"We can always tell" is a violent threat btw.
1K notes · View notes
overthegardenwirtt · 4 months ago
Text
the imane khelif stuff is so crazy because the real reason she is upsetting so many people is because she is a person in the public light who is actually showing that sex is not as binary and biologically determined as terfs/transphobes like to pretend.
like forever the argument has been there are 2 sexes: biological woman (XX, Vagina) and biological man (XY, Penis). but that is not and has never been the case. so now these people have to try to pick apart the things that they THINK make u one biological sex, plato's theory of forms-style, and they can't find a black and white answer and it drives them insane
does testosterone make u a man? does estrogen make u a woman? what about people with PCOS who produce more testosterone? what about men who get their testes removed because of cancer and no longer naturally produce testosterone? what about men going on finasteride? what about people with klinefelter syndrome who have XXY? when we really get down to it, biological sex can become just as fluid as gender sometimes and that is scary to a lot of people
170 notes · View notes
arielthedaydreamer · 1 year ago
Text
The world would be a better place if cis people understood the concepts of gender euphoria and dysphoria as things that everyone experiences, not just trans people.
The woman is not wearing makeup and a short skirt for male attention. She is doing that because it gives her gender euphoria as a woman.
On a more serious note, if a man doesn't feel comfortable to wear a pink shirt; eat a pink ice cream; listen to a female singer who is popular; express his feelings; drink fruity juices; hold his girlfriend's purse; say certain words; act with kindness towards his loved ones; apologize; deescalate conflict; watch a movie enjoyed by women; play with a small and fluffy animal; because he thinks these things make him look girly, less manly or "nor a real man", that is no way to live. That man is experiencing intense levels of gender dysphoria and he needs help.
I feel like people only look at men like that and laugh and call them sexist. Some of them might be and they need to be called out for it, but I feel like gender dysphoria is very common in cis men and we should be calling it what it is.
A cis man doesn't "feel uncomfortable" when he paints his nails for the first time, he gets dysphoric. Just like the cis woman who wears jeans during summer because she forgot to shave her legs and is embarassed about it.
Dysphoria happens to cis people, All. The. Time. Pass the message on.
874 notes · View notes
remidepointedulac · 7 months ago
Text
remaking this post because I originally wrote it as a reply on someone’s post about how tme/tma are intersexist and I want to link to it without drawing attention to their blog.
The theory of trans-misogyny is actually already inclusive of intersex people. Julia Serano, the coiner of the term trans-misogyny, said this when going in depth about the term
As the term has caught on, transmisogyny has increasingly been used as shorthand for any prejudice expressed toward trans women, regardless of content. However, while trans women are certainly targets of transmisogyny, any person who is perceived as, or presumed to be, a feminine or feminized "male" may be subjected to these same derogatory, pathologizing, and sexualizing attitudes (albeit to varying extents). - (Source)
she also said
In the years since Whipping Girl was published, the term "trans-misogyny" has taken on a life of its own, and people now use it in ways that I never intended. Specifically, I used the term to describe how the existence of societal misogyny/traditional sexism greatly informs how people perceive, interpret, or treat gender-variant people who seemingly "want to be female" or "want to be feminine" (regardless of their actual identity). However, many people nowadays use the word "trans-misogyny" in an identity-based manner to refer to any and all forms of discrimination targeting trans women. According to this latter usage, some would argue that people who identify as men, or male crossdressers, or drag queens, cannot possibly experience trans-misogyny—a close reading of Whipping Girl will reveal that I very much disagree with this premise. (See Chapter 48 of this book for a detailed explanation regarding why identity-based views of marginalization tend to be inaccurate and exclusive.) - (Source)
Basically, the popular definition of the terms TMA and TME would be fully inclusive of intersex people if the definition of trans-misogyny TMA/TME went off of was the same as the original definition, instead of adding on the criteria that to experience transmisogyny you have to be AMAB and a trans woman/transfeminine person (although i’ve seen people say transfems who don’t ID as women are tme as well). I believe this is why Julia Serano herself doesn’t use the terms TME/TMA, the way most people use the terms are too different from her theory of trans-misogyny.
225 notes · View notes
misespinas · 2 years ago
Text
I feel like the thing Mulan (1998) accomplished better than any other Disney ‘princess’ film was how her society valued women based off 1. their attractiveness and 2. their ability to be submissive.
Tumblr media
Other Disney movies (ex. Beauty and the Beast) make references to the misogyny women face for being unable to fulfill traditional female roles, but the disgusting standards aren't explored nearly as much as they are in Mulan. The entire song “You'll Bring Honor to Us All” focuses on all these horrible beauty standards she is expected to uphold:
“With good breeding/ And a tiny waist”
“Like a lotus blossom/ Soft and pale”
“a perfect porcelain doll”
But the song also reflects the social status of women and their roles in society:
“Boys will gladly go to war for you”
“A girl can bring her family/ Great honor in one way/ By striking a good match”
“Men want girls with good taste/ Calm/ Obedient/ Who work fast-paced”
��A man by bearing arms/ A girl by bearing sons”
Tumblr media
Mulan’s reflection of this caricature she is meant to become is so much more powerful and sticks out even compared to other more recent Disney movies (Frozen, The Princess and the Frog, etc.)
I personally feel like Mulan is the only ‘princess’ who does not fall into the society's expectations of feminity in come category. She does not seek to become an object, and she defies the roles her society wants her to uphold. Mulan is the only Disney film that shows the impossible standards women are given. The only film that comes close to this would be Brave.
3K notes · View notes
intersexcat-tboy · 10 months ago
Text
Benevolent sexism is still sexism.
If you think placing women on pedestals is feminism or suggesting all women are victims who need protection from men, that's benevolent sexism, not feminism.
If you think abuse is inherently less abusive, less harmful, painful, serious, anything of that sort because a woman is perpetrating it, you've fallen for benevolent sexism.
211 notes · View notes
mallloryrowinski · 2 months ago
Note
You're a transphobe!!! You should be embarrassed
Okay this is getting old now. I know you probably won’t read this reply as you’re clearly refusing to educate yourself on what I stand for, but I wanna have this on my blog regardless so here we go.
I’m a radical feminist, and I’m gender critical. Being gender critical means recognizing that gender is a social construct made to keep women, as a class, oppressed on the basis of their sex, and uphold the patriarchy. The sex you’re born with is a fixed set of characteristics and is immutable (this is a fact. Sex is binary, not fluid. before you try to pull the intersex card, @/not-your-intersex-pawn here on Tumblr has posts that will explain this to you in much greater detail than I can, like their response here).
Now, your sex doesn’t say anything about you! It doesn’t mean a single thing, it just recognizes which set of biological characteristics you were born with. It doesn’t indicate your personality, hobbies, likes and dislikes, whatever. You are a whole person and your sex is just your sex. Women are and have been historically oppressed on the basis of their sex. Not because they identified as anything connected to the female sphere, they were forced into this sphere of subordination and yada yada (gender roles!) on the basis of them being born female. 
Gender, on the other hand, is an identity. Even the gendies themselves have lost the plot a little in my opinion as everything regarding gender now is just so… vague? But basically gender is an identity. Some say it’s innate, some say it isn’t. Most agree that you can change your gender, or at least “reclaim” it, if you believe it’s innate and that you were "born in the wrong body". You can claim any gender, actually, and define it however you please. 
Calling me “cis” would be incorrect not because I’m not a woman, but because I’m not part of the gender craze, meaning that’s an ideology I don’t subscribe to altogether. I don’t believe in it. There’s no such thing as gender. I’m just a woman, neither cis nor trans. 
There’s also an additional note that I would like to make here: as long as we as a society recognize gender, we’re gonna have people either conforming to it or resisting it, or claiming a different gender identity. This is basically the same as “as long as catholicism exists, we’re gonna have catholics, atheists, and people either converting to catholicism or abandoning it”. This does not refer to the group of people who go through physical sex dysphoria. This group may choose to access what you would call “gender-affirming care”, which isn’t gender-affirming for them, because they do not have a problem with their gender to begin with, and most of the time don’t even recognize gender as important/real. Their voices have been unfortunately silenced by the “new wave” of TRAs over the past 5 to 10 or so years, and I do not wish to speak on their behalf, you can do your own research on this, or listen to amazing people such as @/buct-reidentified here on Tumblr. 
If you disagree with me and do believe that gender is an important part of oneself - I don’t have a problem with that! You’re entitled to your own opinions just like I am to my own. If you read all this and still think I’m transphobic, I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do to help you. 
The reason I don’t include trans women in my feminism isn’t because I don’t respect their identity. But their identity is irrelevant when it comes to a movement focusing on the liberation from sex based oppression. What matters is their sex, whether you like it or not, because women are oppressed on the basis of their sex. You can identify as a trans woman but I genuinely hope that you’ll see how being a trans woman is different than being born with a female body. These two will face radically different experiences and challenges, each unique to that group. 
I do believe that trans people, of any kind, do need their own protections, safe spaces, etc. because they clearly are discriminated against and no one should be able to attack or discriminate against anyone because they don’t agree with their identity/the way they present themselves/whatever. 
I do support the preservation of same-sex spaces for women, but this isn’t rooted in fear of trans women but in protecting women from predatory men who exploit gender theory to gain access to these spaces and harm women. I’m sure we can both agree that these cases have happened and I’m not fear-mongering. This is not because all trans women are predators. This has happened and continues to happen because when you give predators and abusers a chance to be predatory and abusive with little to no repercussion by hiding behind an ideology like the gender one, they are typically eager to take it. Women have a right to their same-sex spaces because of the sex-based oppression they’ve faced throughout centuries. Taking these away or reforming places that are specifically sex-exclusive into inclusive ones is not fair to women and results in a zero-sum game. 
So basically, if you identify as a trans man and want me to accommodate you by using he/him pronouns, I have no problem with that. The same goes for they/them or she/her. I’m happy to respect and use your preferred pronouns because I respect you as a person. However, this doesn’t change my understanding of your biological sex. I simply recognize that you identify as trans, which is part of who you are, and I respect that. You believe in gender and I don’t, that’s okay. If you take it to the “I should be able to access sex-exclusive spaces because I identify as trans”, I would politely explain to you why I disagree with that and what options I believe we should make available instead. 
There a ton of points I haven't touched but that are related to this topic, but this is the basics.
39 notes · View notes
loveerran · 5 months ago
Note
Is it tiring for you to have to explain yourself to all the bigots in the world
One would think so, right? I really appreciate the empathy and allyship behind this question.
Surprisingly though, I am finding it very energizing to relate my story. Most of the people I talk to are admittedly not hard core bigots or threatening. But they may be people who don't understand. Speaking to them and working with them not only helps them understand and see the queer experience in a different light, but helps me feel I am doing some good in the world. Even when people disagree with me, but are willing to talk, I usually find there is a path forward and a positive impact to be had.
Last year I spent some time talking to the mom and dad of a trans kid at one of the conferences I attended. The mom is gay and was wearing a 'gays against groomers' t-shirt. Even though she is part of the LGBT community, she was having difficulty relating to her child's gender journey. She was concerned about affirming voices, including online friends and medical professionals. She was worried she was losing the child she had given birth to, and that 'giving in' to being trans would negatively affect her child's life. Her and her husband even did a youtube video with a conservative host to talk about the dangers and evils of gender ideology. We probably spent the better part of an hour together, and I had an opportunity to listen to their viewpoint, hear their concerns, and share a bit of my story. I am not sure any opinions were changed, but it was still good to trade ideas, learn from each other and take away some things to think about.
I spent most of my life in hiding, terrified and full of self-hatred. Finding opportunities to share, to promote understanding (particularly in spiritual contexts), is incredibly healing for me.
The principles of my faith encourage not only the ministering of others to me, but my ministry to them.
59 notes · View notes
whereserpentswalk · 7 months ago
Text
You've been on a generational ship your entire life. There's about a million people on the ship, the population doesn't grow or shrink at all. Your entire life is and will be defined by a limited amount of room, a small space, barely large enough for everyone there to fit, that has become your entire world.
The humans that exist on generational ships are very alien to the humans that exist on planets. Your job is to maintain the ship and carry the culture of humanity but you don't need a human lifestyle to do it. Because reproduction needs to be done through artificial wombs all humans are neutered, with sterile sexless bodies. Everyone's job is determined by ship authority, and very dark things happen to those not able to perform some sort of duty. People spend the first fifteen years of their lives in virtual reality, learning about humanity in a simulation until they're ready to live as adults. Everything is so alien from the earth that you read about in books.
It wouldn't be so hard if society wasn't meant to resemble earth, meant to resemble the most conservative and traditional of earth. The American flags hanging up on the walls, despite everyone alive on board having never known America. The way the pods you live in have astroterf lawns, and fake blue skies painted above them, and the facades of American suburban homes. The way resources a distributed from things meant to look like family run stores, despite the monolithic power behind the economy. Even as monolithic as station authority is it still must dress as democracy, and must preach capitalism in a world with no markets, and patriotism in a world with no nations.
Despite your sexless body you're not free of performing gender. You wear dresses over your breastless neutered body, are expected to act feminine, to carry gender rolls into the planet you're going to. Your husband is expected to do the same for maleness. You love him but your situation feels like a performance with no audience. Despite having neither the instinctual desire nor the physical apparatus to you try to be physically intimate with him, it's what everyone does with their spouse, it would be weird not to.
Space isn't as empty as earth thought it would be. There are things that lurk in the void between stars. Nobody fully knows what they are, where they come from, even if they all come from the same place. Sometimes they put the ship in danger, sometimes the authorities make deals with them. But nobody is allowed to know. You're just all told to be afraid of them but not understand why you have to be afraid. The nightmares between stars aren't delt with with knowledge but with ignorance, they do seem creepy from the little you've seen of them but everyone kind of knows their power is being used for something by the station. Patriotism is always helped by having monsters beyond your borders.
Your entire you've dreamed of blue skies and stars and fields and forests and oceans and all those pretty things you've never seen, that you never will see. People always dream of being so high ranking they'll have access to suspended animation and life extension technology, but so few ever reach that rank. You've read all the classics they allow, read Dante, and Milton, and Homer, tried to let poetry bring you to earth but that planet is alien to you now. Sometimes you wonder what it would be like if you weren't raised in a world that copied earth, if you were accepted as a member of a race that lives on a ship, that exists so liminally. Would there still be such a longing. Mabye you shouldn't have been expected to meet a standard from another world. Mabye you weren't born to long for anything. Does it scare you to think you wouldn't want earth if they didn't tell you to?
104 notes · View notes
shamebats · 3 months ago
Text
"One way indirect bigotry works is by camouflaging political struggles as intellectual debates. When Joanne says "sex is real", she sounds like she's staking out a position in "the trans debate". Which is then presented as an intellectual conflict about the metaphysics of gender, instead of what it is really is, which is a political conflict about the social equality of transgender people.
And the effectiveness of that strategy is actually a reason I'm not a huge fan of the slogan, "trans women are women". And this is just my opinion, I don't speak for any other trans people but there's a couple things I don't like about it. One, is trans men and non-binary people matter just as much as trans women. But you don't as often hear, "trans men are men" or “non-binary people are... valid?” Doesn't really work does it?
The other problem with "trans women are women", is it tends to invite the response "well what does it even mean to be a woman? Define womanhood!" And now you're immediately getting baited into some bullshit semantic debate about "what is a real woman?"
It doesn't really matter, does it? This is metaphysics. And life is too short for metaphysics. You know I've been down this road too many times already, and I always end up having these dead end conversations about gender performativity; or worse, conversations about what it means to "feel like a woman". Well the truth is I don't really feel like a woman. I don't think anyone feels like a woman honestly, except a certain subgenre of gay men and possibly Shania Twain.
[...]
So I know it sounds kind of outdated, very 1970’s, but I personally like the slogan, "trans liberation now!" ⚧ ✊ It's short, it's sweet, and instead of prompting "define womanhood!" it prompts people to ask "what do you mean liberation? Liberation from what?" And then you can say, “well I'll tell you!” And now you're talking about politics instead of talking about semantics. Isn't that better?
I feel like trans culture is just so obsessed with reassuring ourselves that we're “valid”, that we sometimes forget that the end goal of a political movement is not “validity”, it's equality."
- from J.K. Rowling | ContraPoints
194 notes · View notes
dandelionjack · 8 months ago
Text
if i won’t have lost the special interest by the time i’m back at uni and i’d have seen most of classic by then i want to write an academic paper on gender in doctor who. because there is SO MUCH to say about it. thinking about missy’s lampshading of the companion-as-gender in world enough and time. companion is a de facto gender, right? and the doctor is a gender. thirteen is not more feminine than ten or eleven, in fact, she’s emotionally distant and harsh in highly masculine-coded ways and the doctor will always find themselves taking on the masculine role re: the narrative, no matter what gender the actor that’s playing them is. of course amy pond as the ur-example of the companion without agency, treated by the story as a vessel and an object to pass between husband and doctor. then there’s subversion (ace, bill) and deconstruction (clara). martha’s character being simplified in the public consciousness as ten’s tragic rebound, ignoring her doctorification arc. doctorification itself as a transition of sorts. time lords’ gender-fluidity contrasted with their culture’s rigid social norms. cybermen and daleks turning themselves genderless as a marker of dystopian uniformity. the role of river song. rose noble and her magical mystery metacrisis transgenderism. charley sneaking onto the R101 dressed as a boy. ace dressing gwendoline in a man’s costume in ghost light as a symbol of evolution
i swear it could go on forever . i bet when i’ve watched the rest of classic the list of examples would be twice as long, the earlier you look
92 notes · View notes
poetofdiana · 3 months ago
Text
Romantic vs Platonic Love
What is the difference between 'romantic' love and 'platonic' love? I don't think there is any innate difference between these 'types' of love. Aromantic/asexual philosophies argue that the centrality of romantic relationships in society devalues friendships and defines them as less important than romantic relationships. Phrases like "we're just friends" and "friends with benefits" support this idea. What do relationships look like that don't center romance above friendship?
One of the big differences that people will argue exists between romantic and platonic love is the intensity of the connection. However, I'd like to assert that the cultural devaluation of friendship is what facilitates this belief rather than an actual difference in potential intensity. As someone who is currently and has in the past been involved in emotionally and physically intense friendships, I have first-hand experience with how intense these relationships can become. I have cuddled, slept overnight with, shared feelings that I've shared with no one else, discussed relationship boundaries, bickered, and much more with my friends. When society centers romantic relationships, we define friendship as any important connections that are 'less than' romance. This puts limitations on expressions of love between friends that have tangible consequences. When asked to define cheating, many people will name 'excessive' physical or emotional intimacy between friends as something that they are uncomfortable with their romantic partner engaging in. In the absence of these cultural limitations, friendships could be equally or even more intense than romantic relationships.
[ASIDE: This is also tied to the relatively new cultural idea (based in the development of the nuclear family) that a romantic partner should be the sole source of all emotional, physical, and mental comfort/support. This limits social networks and allows for the perpetuation of domestic violence by romantic partners. It is also simply a less sustainable relationship model than the diffusion of support/care needs into a robust social network.]
Once people begin to conceptualize romantic and platonic love as equally important (as is often the case in poly and aroace spaces), they sometimes argue that there is an innate ineffable difference between what romantic and platonic attraction feels like. I do not intend to argue against the idea that people feel different ways towards different people. Instead, I'd like to argue that the classification of these feelings into 'romantic' and 'platonic' is reductive and harmful in the pursuit of meaningful connections that don't fit neatly into the category of 'romance.' When attempting to make sense of our emotions, we strive to find patterns. Given the socially legible categories of 'romantic' and 'platonic' feelings, it makes sense for people to attempt to categorize each of their relationships into one of these boxes. However, this way of viewing the important relationships in our lives limits how we can experience them. 'Platonic' relationships are devalued and limited by romantic norms. Relationships that are not socially legible as either platonic or romantic are seen as weird and undesirable, encouraging limitations on these relationships in order to fit them into one of the categories. 'Romantic' relationships are grounded in a set of socially agreed upon norms that do not necessarily reflect the desires of the individuals in the relationship, but become expectations due to the categorization of the relationship as romantic.
So what do close relationships look like if 'romance' and 'friendship' are done away with entirely? Without a set of social norms governing each relationship, individuals must develop these norms within their relationships through communication, boundary-setting, and care. Different relationships will naturally have different value in an individual's life, but instead of conforming to the social expectations placed on each relationship because of its categorization (romantic vs platonic), that individual will be free to determine what the value of each relationship is for them.
In my pursuit of meaningful, healthy relationships, I have already begun this work of deconstructing relationship categories. Though it is hard work to set expectations for each individual relationship, it facilitates a much deeper emotional connection than simply allowing expectations to follow from a relationship label. I have been able to set boundaries in relationships that would violate traditional norms of romance or friendship (for example, I regularly cuddle and massage one of my partners, but we do not kiss). It is freeing to let go of social norms that pressure us to engage in specific behaviors or feel specific feelings about people simply because we have labeled them 'romantic' or 'platonic.' Though it is hard work, it has been incredibly beneficial to the quality of my relationships to deconstruct this norm.
31 notes · View notes