#i do not believe that any gender should exist not even male or female

[sodomit]

TRANSUNITY

Transunity is a political theory that was actively talked about on Tumblr a couple of years ago, but has since fallen out of the public spotlight. And this is unfortunate, because it could have really improved a lot of the discourse around gender.

There exists a blog under that name ( @transunity ), but it has been inactive for a year. I am not affiliated with that blog anyhow, I never had any personal contacts with its mods, but I want to get their general ideas to circulate again, so I'm trying to bring this back up in a semi organized fashion. My take on transunity is just my take, if you're one of the original coiners, and you disagree, I encourage you to talk about it, because we still have much more in common with each other than different.

GENERAL VIEWS

I believe that one of the fundamental ideas more trans people need to understand is that we're all more or less in the same place in the eyes of the society (when other factors, such as ethnicity or disability, are considered). To be trans is to fail the gender role system, from the point of view of cis people we can no longer be proper men or women. All kinds of trans people regardless of identity are affected by misogyny and misandry (not a type of marginalization by itself, but turns into a vector of oppression when overlapping with a different marginalization), which forms the foundation of transmisogyny, transandrophobia, and exorsexism*. These types of bigotry are not exclusive and unique to specific gender identities either and may be applied to any trans person for as long as it's convenient to the oppressor.

Trans people do not have gendered power over each other, and intra community bigotry is better conceptualized as a form of lateral aggression.

Gender assignment and sex are never strictly binary (especially with inclusion of intersex people, who belong in gender conversations even if they don't identify as trans) and need to be understood as much more fluid and not strictly correlating with one's actual position in life.

WHAT WE NEED TO REDUCE

The following things should be discussed more critically:

- "Powerjacketing" - implying someone has gendered privilege as a means of delegitimizing their words, while in reality they do not have this privilege;

- Malgendering - forcing trans people to choose between being gendered correctly and speaking up about their mistreatment (e.g. questioning trans women's womanhood on the basis of them aggressively defending themselves or trans men's manhood on the basis of them asking for help) or implying there's something wrong with them in a way that reinforces gender stereotypes;

- Assuming that some trans people are exempt from some forms of oppression on the basis of gender assignment/sex (e.g. by calling all trans people who were assigned female "tme"** or claiming trans people who were assigned male are inherently incapable of understanding fear of sexual assault);

- Assuming that oppression of trans people is rooted in gender assignment/sex (such as, calling reproductive oppression "sex based oppression"***);

- Gatekeeping certain identities, such as "transmasc", "transbian", "femboy" as exclusive to any gender assignment/sex;

- Creating a duality out of "transsexual" and "cissexual", where not medically transitioning trans people are assumed to have some kind of a gendered privilege, or to not be trans in any meaningful material way. Various transmed ideas about dysphoria and transition go there too;

- Accusing trans people who take inspiration from each other of appropriation (trans headcanons, kinks, drag culture, etc).

SYMBOL

The following image is the official transunity symbol developed by the original transunity bloggers. Sorry about the glitch effect, I wasn't able to find one without it.

* Transmisogyny, transandrophobia, and exorsexism are not exclusive to specific identities, although they do primarily target traits associated with these identities. They can be conceptualized as bigotry and oppression towards people who are recognized as incorrectly entering respectively womanhood, manhood, and a status beyond gender binary (for the latter no normative form exists****). However, it's not wrong to use them to mean "oppression of trans women" and so forth, for as long as you're not claiming it's exclusive.

** Labels like "tma" and "tme" still may be used, but solely in a self assigned manner. I believe that an individual trans person is capable of evaluating whether they're affected by transmisogyny and in what way, and they should be trusted on this. However, no gender assignment and no current gender identity makes anyone inherently tme.

*** "Sex based oppression" instead of "reproductive oppression" reinforces the idea that people who share a specific body part (e.g. an uterus in context of conversations about abortion) are inherently of the same sex. This type of essentialism is desperately needed by terfs in this discussion, as they're trying to sell the ideas of "sex based oppression" and "sex based privilege" to people they want to recruit in their ideology. Invoking the idea of "sex" as something trans men and some nonbinary people are oppressed through is not the correct way to respond to people who say we don't experience any gendered violence besides "just transphobia", it has shitty implications and helps shitty people.

**** Lack of existence of normative nonbinary gender does not mean that these genders are not recognized by the society as a deviant, marginalized identity, and that binary people cannot be pushed into this zone.

[hiiragi7]

Exercise: Exposing intersexism in yourself

Perisex (non-intersex) people please take time to work through this. I'd also appreciate if you reblogged, even if you don't have time to do the exercise.

When you think of an 'intersex body', what comes to mind?

-Do you think of a stereotypical "hermaphrodite"? (Ex. a penis + vagina, a penis + pair of breasts, a very feminine person with a beard)

Do you, or have you ever, used one of the following arguments;

-Intersex people are living proof that trans people exist/that gender/sex is not binary

-Intersex existing disproves everything TERFs/transphobes believe in

-Cis kids with hormone issues are allowed to take HRT or participate in sports, which is hypocritical against trans people

-Nobody is forcing kids into sex reassignment surgery or hormones, that isn't a thing that happens

-Any kind of argument which uses intersex people as a statistic, whether that is framing intersex people existing as either "common" or "rare"

Do you, or have you ever, said any of the following statements;

-Technically I'm biologically intersex now because I took HRT/had surgery, which makes me biologically nonbinary aka intersex

-I tell people that I am intersex/have a hormone condition to avoid discrimination

-I wish I was born as/could become intersex, it would help my dysphoria a lot

-Intersex people are so lucky because they're already biologically nonbinary, they don't even need to transition

-This animal was born with a mix of sex characteristics/without a sex/developed characteristics of the opposite sex over time, which means they're nonbinary/trans

When it comes to sex, do you;

-Believe that sex is binary

-Believe that all intersex people are infertile

-Believe that all intersex people produce both sperm and egg

-Fantasize about intersex bodies, or consume or create porn that displays either intersex bodies or exaggerated stereotypes of hermaphroditic bodies

-Ask invasive questions about what genitals or reproductive organs an intersex person has

-Treat AFAB/AMAB the same as "[non-medically-transitioned] perisex female/perisex male", such as saying "AFAB anatomy" when you really mean vulva, vagina, uterus, ovaries, breasts, and so on

-Believe that HRT/surgery makes you intersex

-Believe that intersex only covers certain types of variation in sex and not others (Ex. Counting ovotestes, CAIS, and CAH as intersex but not counting PCOS or Klinefelter's)

When it comes to creating (artwork, writing, videos, etc), do you;

-Wish to include an intersex character, but do little or no research on how to write/draw them

-Fail to consider how your work will affect real-life intersex people consuming your work

-Ask random intersex people to help you create an intersex character

-Wish to include an intersex character because you personally think intersex people are interesting, or because you are seeking to include as many marginalized identities as you can

-Create intersex characters because you personally find them sexy

-Refer to characters as "hermaphrodites"

-If you create pride artwork or sell pride artwork, if you include a large variety of other LGBT+ identities but do not include intersex, why is this?

When it comes to advocacy work, do you;

-Fail to bring up intersex issues in conversations which should directly involve them, such as the Kansas bathroom bill

-Attempt to push intersex people out of queer spaces by saying that they are not queer

-Fail to recognize or acknowledge how many anti-queer and anti-trans arguments are inherently also anti-intersex arguments

-Say that intersex people are just "collateral damage" or "just caught in the crossfire/targeted by mistake" when it comes to discussing discrimination

-Never think to bring intersex flags or pins or similar to pride even as an ally, contributing to pride being vastly void of intersex pride

-Never attempt to organize protests specifically for intersex rights, or never bring intersex issues up in LGBTQIA+ support groups or resource centers or online

-Never educate others on intersex issues or lift up intersex voices

-Believe that intersex people have more rights than other marginalized groups, or that they are not discriminated against for being intersex

-Believe that all intersex people who are discriminated against are only discriminated against because people believe that they are transgender

Now, not all of these will point towards you being intersexist; however, if you find yourself hitting several points listed here, you do likely have some internalized biases and intersexism to unpack.

[vexingwoman]

really simple question just to get it out the way:

Why do you guys use female/woman and male/man interchangeably when gender and sex aren’t the same thing? Is it because being a female is so close with being a woman? as in being a female automatically shapes the experience of a woman, especially when dealing with bodily autonomy? Because yeah someone may not be born female, but they can still identify as a woman… since gender and sex aren’t the same. But y’all treat it as such. I’m just wondering why?

I’ve already thoroughly answered this exact question here. And if you’re still unable to grasp the radical feminist view on sex and gender after reading that, I’ve answered similar questions on the subject here, here, and here. Now I want to ask you a question instead:

Have you ever, even once, thought further than the observation that sex and gender are separate concepts? Or is this one-liner the full extent of your argumentation? Is this your answer, excuse, and justification for everything? The threshold where your critical thinking abruptly ends?

Because I’m quite sick of your side whipping out the “sex and gender are different” card as though it’s the end of the conversation, when it’s only the beginning of it. 

Sex and gender are different, and therefore what? What is gender, if not a sexist social construct created to enforce female subjugation and male domination by ascribing feminine expectations to female people and masculine expectations to male people? Why should the existence of this sexist social construct be reified via claiming one can voluntarily identify into it?

What is the social construct of women that you claim certain males identify with, if not a coalescence of offensive feminine stereotypes? And why should a male who conforms to feminine stereotypes be considered a woman, rather than just a feminine man? More importantly, why should a male be granted access to female-only spaces based on his conformance to femininity? 

Essentially, why should the word woman be regarded as anything other than shorthand for adult female human being? If the word woman isn’t shorthand for adult female human being, and by extension, the word girl isn’t shorthand for underage female human being, then what words are? What exactly is the benefit of defining women and girls by the feminine stereotypes created to subjugate them, rather than defining them as human females at different life stages?

Have you ever considered any of these questions? Do you have non-circular answers for any of them? What would remain of gender ideology if you were forced to abandon your circular definitions and intellectual dishonesty? Have you considered that your side’s desperate devotion to circular definitions and intellectual dishonesty is simply an attempt to disguise how this ideology hinges on nothing but sexist stereotypes?

It’s very obvious to me that your side thinks radical feminists are simply uneducated on your ideology—that if only we understood, we would surely agree with you. In reality, virtually every radical feminist is a former gender ideologue who used to vehemently defend the exact nonsense you believe now.

Your side is on the upward curve of acceptance because you have not allowed yourselves to think beyond the surface level, beyond the cultish devotion to curricular reasoning, or beyond the uselessly vague, purely emotion-based statements. Radical feminists are on the downward curve of acceptance because they have. If you only allowed yourselves to think critically and honestly about this, I’m sure you would soon come to your senses.

[ctheathy]

WRITE ME REDSON X MALE READER 😭 DID I DO IT GOOD NOW!????

Red Son General Headcanons

Redson x Reader

General+Fluff Headcanons

Author’s note: Nuh uh you did absolutely TERRIBLE😡. I should just solve the problem and ban you from my account right now. You even went against my rules dipshi- [The requester and I are friends, don't cancel me]

Possibly OOC, but I tried. I had to depend on the wikipedia for information cause I've never even watched Monkie Kid to begin with. This was really just an exception for a friend of mine.

Redson/Reader [Romantic Tendencies]

[Gender-neutral Darling|Female Darling|Male Darling]

Potential ⚠️TWs⚠️ :

!Male Reader! • Paranoia

The level of priority towards reputation are often known to depend on a rank one was born into or the image they created for themselves over the course of time, which in this case is undoubtedly high... Redson has been shown to hold a lot of family pride and takes any chance to prove his authority over his subclasses. It's safe to say the the demon bull is likely going to have some difficulty swallowing his ego to allow emotional connections to grow and much less legitimise a romantic relationship with someone from the group he has grown acquainted with.

He can also be known to be rather petty and too prideful to accept his flaws. So if happens to be something that irritates you, you're definitely going to end up having one or more squabbles with the son of the Demon Bull King. Especially when it comes to Redson having a fierce temper and such, resulting in him trying to lecture you and get a completely insignificant point across. But I also believe you'd be more capable of keeping him in line instead of if you were to just go along with his behaviour. But it can also cause in a feast of awkwardness, as there have been several occasions where you embarrassingly have to hold Redson back from lashing out at a laughing MK and Mei for calling your arguments a lover's quarrel.

Though even with his high-and-mighty and hostile nature, it is important to remember that as long as a bond is formed, he won't ever actually harm or even remotely think of hurting you. Like, at all. He can be a bit bigmouthed at times, but many of his words should regularly be taken with a grain of salt. He is quick to snap at anyone from time to time, but I believe your presence would definitely keep him tame to a certain degree, as your mere existence just happens to soothe him. So on the bright side, you might be able to kick him off his high horse for the first time during his five hundred years of life.

I can picture Redson having grown up under a domain of regulation where females are generally and more often treated extra delicately due to being more ‘fragile’, so you can expect him to behave firmer, a bit more rough yet open to his real self a lot faster than if you were a female. He'll see you less as a ‘target’ for a lack of better term, and more as a comrade. Plus, if you were to give him the approval he lacked from his parents, it wouldn't feel uncomfortable as long as you have had the opportunity to create a connection. Though primarily, I cannot view intimate scenarios as anything other than plain awkward for a little while. You're gonna have to be the one initiating the hugs with him and give implications to get more touchy feely. Though when surrounded by eyewitnesses, he'll often still end up shooing you away ...you'll perhaps, just maybe absolutely get to hold his hand at most.

I mean, when's the last time you've seen somebody behaving sappy and all goo-goo with the literal son of the Demon Bull King out in the open? He just cannot allow it! Not only for the sake of his dignity, but also to keep up his image so you'll continue seeing him as an almighty demon who has an unnerving amount of political power over any lower rank. As far deep down, hidden within... he wants to appear and be so much more special to you than he'd be willing to admit.

If you were to lack in durability, fighting abilities or overall weapon skills, I can see Redson going out of his way to strictly teach you his ways of strength individually. Not necessarily in a sense to get you to his level, but in order to give you the capability to protect yourself. He would always be there to protect you with ferocious security at a moment's notice [and scold you afterwards for getting yourself in a dangerous situation], but he cannot help but doubt his abilities to ensure your safety at times. Along with fearing for the worst that one time he might not be there to save you. And this singular thought might just be what it takes to make him evaluate how he actually feels about you.

[molsno]

I've already written about why male socialization is a myth that needs to be discarded, but in the responses to those posts, I sometimes find tme trans people who concede that yes, the concept of male socialization should be rejected, but refuse to let go of their own supposed female socialization. this always makes me quite reasonably angry, for two reasons:

I dislike it when people hijack my posts about transmisogyny to talk about things that aren't transmisogyny.

rejecting male socialization but embracing female socialization is still innately transmisogynistic.

you might find yourself wondering how that second point could possibly be true. it's true for a lot of reasons, and I'll explain to the best of my ability.

"female socialization" is the idea that people who were assigned female at birth undergo a universal experience of girlhood that stays with them the rest of their lives.

right off the bat, this concept raises alarm bells. first, it is a bold (and horribly incorrect) assertion to claim that there is any universal experience of girlhood that is shared by all people who were afab. what exactly constitutes girlhood varies greatly based on culture, time period, race, class, sexual orientation, and many, many other factors. disregarding transness for a moment, can you really say that, for example, white women and black women in modern day america, even with all else being equal, are socialized in the same way? the differences in "socialization" only become more stark the fewer commonalities two given people have. to give another example, a white gay trans man born in 2001 to an upper middle class family in a progressive city in the north is going to have a very different life than a cis straight mexican woman born in 1952 to an impoverished family and risked her life immigrating to the us in the deep south. can you really say anything meaningful about the "female socialization" that these two supposedly have in common? I think that b. binaohan said it best in "decolonizing trans/gender 101":

Then in a singular sense we most certainly cannot talk about 'male socialization' or 'female socialization' as things that exist. We can only talk about 'male socialization**s**' and 'female socialization**s**'. For if we take the multiplicity of identity seriously, as we must, then we are socialized as a whole person based on the nexus of the parts of our identity and our axes of oppression. ... Indeed, it gets complex enough that we could assert, easily, that each individual is socialized in unique ways that cannot be assumed true of any other person, since no one else shares our **exact** context. Not even my sister was socialized in the same way that I was.

and while I could just leave it at that and tell you to read the rest of their book (which you should), it wouldn't sit right with me if I just debunked the concept without explaining exactly why it's transmisogynistic at its core.

now, I should preface this by saying that I believe trans people have a right to identify however they want, and I think that trans people deserve the space to talk about their lives before transition without facing judgment. there are tme trans people who consider themselves women and there are trans men who don't consider themselves women at all but nonetheless have a lot of negative experiences with being expected to conform to womanhood. I don't want to deprive these people of the ability to talk about their life experiences. however, I do want them to keep in mind a few things.

first of all, "female socialization" is terf rhetoric. terfs talk all the time about how womanhood is inherently traumatic, which they regularly use as a talking point to convince trans men to detransition and join their side. when your whole ideology hinges on the belief that having been afab predestines you to a life of suffering, who is a better target to indoctrinate than trans people for whom being expected to conform to womanhood was a major source of trauma and dysphoria? the myth of female socialization is precisely why there are detransitioners in the terf movement who vehemently oppose trans rights.

that's why when tme trans people talk about having undergone female socialization, it's almost always steeped in the underlying implication that womanhood is an innately negative experience. even if they don't buy into the biological determinism central to radical feminism, that implication is still present. because, you see, womanhood can still be innately negative because the result of being viewed as and expected to be a woman is that you are inundated with misogyny.

that right there is why clinging to the notion of female socialization is transmisogynistic. it allows tme trans people, many of whom don't even consider themselves women, to position themselves as experts who understand womanhood and misogyny better than any trans woman ever could. that's why I find it disingenuous when a tme trans person claims to reject male socialization but still considers themself as having undergone female socialization; how could they possibly benefit from doing so, other than by claiming to be more oppressed than trans women, by virtue of supposedly experiencing more misogyny?

by being viewed as more oppressed than trans women on the basis of female socialization, they gain access to "women's only" spaces that trans women are denied access to. their voices are given priority in discussions about gendered oppression. people more readily view them as the victims when they come into interpersonal conflict with trans women. they become incapable of perpetrating transmisogyny on the basis of being the "more oppressed" category of trans people.

how exactly could such a person not be transmisogynistic, though? if they believe that gendered socialization is a valid and universal truth that one can never escape from, then what does it even mean for them to reject the concept of male socialization? if they were to actually, vehemently reject it, then they would no longer be able to leverage their own "female socialization" to imply that trans women aren't real, genuine women on account of not having experienced it. and make no mistake - there are very few tme trans people who subscribe to the myth of gendered socialization that even claim to reject male socialization. most of the time, they're very clear about their beliefs that trans women have some "masculine energy" that we can never truly get rid of after having undergone a lifetime of being expected to conform to manhood. and as a result, they continue to treat trans women as dangerous oppressors.

that's why gendered socialization as a concept needs to be abandoned wholesale. there's nothing wrong with talking about your experiences as a trans person, but giving any validity to this vile terf rhetoric always harms trans women, just like it was intended to do from its very inception.

[thewertsearch]

AG: Tavros, you give confidence a 8ad name. I gave you all the chances in the world to earn it, to earn REAL confidence, and you failed.

Pictured: Vriska giving Tavros 'a chance to earn real confidence'.

AG: You couldn't even do the one little thing I asked you to! The one thing that would have made you man up once and for all.

'Man up' is a funny idiom for a troll to use. We've occasionally seen trolls fall into human gender stereotypes, but it's quite rare, and always sticks out like a sore thumb.

There's an interesting conversation to be had about troll genders. With a reproductive cycle so different to ours, their gender framework will inevitably be different as well. Yes, there are male and female trolls - but what do male and female actually mean to a troll?

On Earth, your assigned gender carries cultural baggage which simply wouldn't exist on Alternia. Assigned gender plays no role in reproduction, nor does it influence household division of labor, since trolls don't have households.

Gender aside, do trolls have a concept of masculine and feminine? Beyond a few stray idioms, the only evidence I can find is their clothing styles. We haven't seen any male trolls rocking a skirt - not yet, at least.

tl;dr: 'Man up' is a cultural can of worms. I think that was probably unintentional, though, and I think we're supposed to interpret that line as if a human spoke it. Vriska's calling Tavros a wimp, which is business as usual.

AG: So instead you flew away and cried, and decided to sleep away your sorrow for the rest of the adventure.

Tavros already alluded to this incident during his conversation with Jade. I guessed that Vriska would be involved, but that was a bit of a no-brainer.

Vriska's trying to frame Tavros as pathetic, but it sounds like he actually put his foot down, flat-out refusing to participate in whatever she had planned. Much like the FLARP incident, this sounds like a victory for Tavros, even if she's convinced him otherwise.

AG: Do you have any idea how sick that made me? Everything a8out you makes me sick.

He rejects your advice. He rejects your advances. His lusus cared for him. He was allowed to be kind, and accepts kindness from others. He doesn't care about winning, but he never lets you win. No matter how much you torment him, he refuses to get any stronger, which means your mindset might be wrong.

'Sick' would be an understatement.

AG: Your plan to control her lusus really wasn't a 8ad idea! AG: And using your a8ility to "save her life" (lol) was a pretty good way to test how effective your powers are across sessions. [...] AG: Practicing your a8ilities is important, so when it comes down to using them for something that really matters, you know you're ready for prime time. AG: I know this first hand. AG: I got lots and lots and LOTS of practice with your little guinea pig friend. ::::D

So that's why Jade was constantly napping? That can't have been good for her brain.

AG: The catch is it's not going to work! [...] AG: You couldn't sic the guardian on Noir even if you were inclined. Not even if I were to MAKE you inclined! :::;)

Like I said before, it's really Vriska who can control First Guardians.

AG: 8ecause you are dealing with a pro here. I already thought of that. AG: I thought of everything! AG: The guardian is not going to attack the agents who engineered him in the first place. AG: Or who I should say were "encouraged" (lol) to engineer him.

Why the fuck would you do this?

When Vriska prototyped Bec, she explained that the event was mandated by the Alpha Timeline, so she didn't make anything worse by causing it. I don't agree with her argument, but I do understand her logic.

This is different. Up until now, there has been no evidence that Bec can't harm Agents. Vriska had no prophecy to fulfil, and no reason to believe that this was required to preserve the timeline. Yes, now we know it's baked into the timeline, but only because Vriska wanted it.

Having Bec help with Jack was a really good idea, and removing the option to do so helps no one. Where's the benefit?

AT: wHY WOULD YOU DO THAT, AG: Tavros, at this point it should 8e o8vious. AG: I am the unseen hand 8ehind every major event in their session, and to some extent, their whole lives. AG: At least those events not happening 8y the volition of their own natural incompetence! AG: Don't you think this is how it should 8e? Shouldn't the greatest player leave her fingerprints on every step of the rise to power of her ultim8 nemesis?

I know Vriska likes to feel in control, but this is ridiculous.

Inserting yourself into Alpha loops is one thing, but nerfing Bec when you don't have to is straight-up sabotage. Couldn't she just stick to micromanaging John's outfits?

AG: I have every angle covered already. The human session is on full Serket lockdown. Any effort you make to disrupt my plans will 8e laugha8le, just like everything you have ever done in your life. AG: The only thing left to do now is prepare to kill Jack myself, and save everyone's ungrateful asses.

Oh my god, I think I've cracked it.

Vriska thinks she's the only one with the right to kill Jack.

She describes him as her ultimate nemesis, which reeks of main character syndrome. Bec isn't important enough to kill Jack, so she eliminated him as an option. It has to be her, the most powerful Player, who's gained all the levels, because that is how these things are done.

It's not just ego, either - there's a deeper motivation at play. If Vriska doesn't beat Jack, she doesn't win - and if she doesn't win, then what was all that abuse were all those challenges for? What was the point?

In Vriska's head, Jack needs to be her nemesis. She needs to be destined to kill him - because if she is, then everything she went through was justified. She'll have secured her position as the most powerful Player of all, and she'll never have to be jealous of anyone again - least of all that wimp with his sweet little fairy lusus. They're all weak, and she's strong.

If she doesn't kill Jack, she's a loser.

And losers may as well be dead.

[agoddamn]

@cardinalgoldenbrow not quite. Something else fell into Duviri.

Not a whole person, but a piece so significant and meaningful that it kicked off the entire paradox meltdown sequence.

The Lotus's hand.

The Lotus had enough conceptual weight to her to give the Drifter the power of the Void, a power the Lotus herself never even had. She is so strongly connected to the Tenno that she connects the Drifter to them by way of her own hand.

Why, then, wouldn't that be conceptually powerful enough to birth a denizen of Duviri?

Gender? Means nothing. Thrax is male and can be spawned from a female Drifter all the same.

Timeline? Duviri experiences time in a way that isn't linear to the Origin System. We already know this thanks to Teshin having been living in Duviri a long time by the time the Lotus's hand lands even though they fell at about the same time.

Let's look at the major beats here.

First, why is Ballas the Warden to Kullervo? "Because he's an Orokin, he's a ruler, the Drifter saw his portraits as a child!" Yeah, plausible, but by that logic Tuvul should be the Warden. Tuvul drove much of the Zariman project. His statues are all over it. The Commons are even named for him. If the Drifter were unconsciously reaching for any authority figure, it should have been Tuvul.

Speaking of authority figures, Executors don't rule Duviri. A king does. Kullervo's texts talk explicitly about Executors and other things about the Origin System in a way that doesn't match Duviri's canon. Why import Ballas as an authority figure and then demote him to Warden all while acknowledging that he ought to be an Executor?

Let's read Kullervo's story.

Hated Kullervo, did you truly believe he could love you? 

Oh, huh. Kullervo was in love with an Executor. One of the Seven. That's--rare. Who would love one of those assholes?

Kullervo's criminal trajectory is most strange. He was in love with an Executor, killed an Orokin to prove it, obeyed a direct Orokin order (why does an authority figure call this a crime?), killed someone like a mother to him--an Archimedean he was trying to rescue from Orokin custody, odd detail there--then attacked the Orokin again, then orchestrated the Night of the Naga Drums.

Man's got loyalties like a ping-pong ball, huh? Why?

The children's rhymes tell a rather different story.

An enslaved warrior torn from his mother. He was born to fight, eventually learned a truth of his birth, saw his home lost. He bursts into a rage, murders, and then kills himself.

This is much much much more straightforward. You'll notice that the children's rhymes don't mention Origin System concepts like Executors, either. Nothing about love.

Why all the complication?

Two distinct narratives, both tossing in details that beg for more elaboration. Why do this, as a writer? Why spend the voice actors' time like this?

I can only think it was done on purpose.

Two different stories, two different readings on the same person. One from Ballas, one from children.

(Huh. They say Kullervo is a friend to children, don't they?)

The Lotus lived very different lives from the perspectives of Ballas versus her Tenno.

Natah was born to war, a mimic spy with a purpose. She left her family--not by choice--and killed her fellow Sentients as the Lotus; a betrayer. She then orchestrated the Night of the Naga Drums; a betrayer twice over, the mother of a bloodbath.

Ballas sees her as a betrayer, someone who loved him and threw him away.

We see beats of Margulis's story here, too--an Archimedean that was like a mother, killed in a struggle that wouldn't have existed if not for the choice of resistance.

Kullervo isn't literally the Lotus, but I believe that he was conceptually born from her.

His stories contain the major beats of her life, only slightly twisted by perspective. Those details are so specific--in love with an Executor? Betrayed their own kind, and then their 'ruler'? A mother figure (so specific! Why not just have her as his mother?) who was an Archimedean, killed because of resisting the authority that ruled them both?

Kullervo is made up of her pieces, like a collage.

I believe that Ballas's presence and the sudden mention of Executors when that doesn't match the rest of Duviri are supposed to be clues to us that something from the Origin System has leaked in to birth Kullervo, that he is not simply an independent figure that existed in the past. When Teshin and Albrecht rolled into Duviri, they did simply that--they entered Duviri and adopted its ways while they lived there. They didn't come with an entire chapter of a story that isn't from the Duviri Tales.

Another point to Kullervo being born from Duviri is that he is treated like he exists in Duviri. Nobody says that he suddenly appeared like Albrecht or Teshin. Acrithis talks about him as if he's a part of the story. They all know his history. It's only the Warden who relates such a different history.

I think that the name Kullervo probably did exist as some minor character in the original Duviri Tales. The Drifter's subconscious applied this to the tangle of trauma that the Lotus conceptually exists as.

tl;dr Kullervotus

[womenaremypriority]

What is gender?

Instead of asking “what is a woman?” I propose we should ask more what gender is.  The transgender movement is, fundamentally about placing gender above sex, in language and law- although claiming sex is a spectrum or a complete construction is becoming more common.  ‘Woman’ and ‘man’ aren’t sex terms, they’re genders, sexual attraction is based on gender, not sex, and public planning should be based on gender.  So, what is it?  

The roots of the word gender came from Latin, and originally meant ‘category, group.’  It has etymological roots with the word genre, and this is partly why we have the term grammatical gender in many languages.  Gender became a synonym for biological sex hundreds of years ago, and is used partly as a more family friendly alternative.  As a separate entity, however, gender refers to the social roles of male and female.

Here are a few definitions and helpful information:

Let’s look at the specifics of the different interpretations of the word ‘gender’.

Gender roles: Self explanatory. What feminists are against. What transgender activists claim to be against, and what they claim is not the basis for transgender identity. This seems to be the most clear and understandable definition, to me, anyway.

Gender identity: An internal sense of gender. This has been claimed to exist, but how this could possibly present or feel has not been in anyway demonstrated. Studies have shown transgender people have the brains of the gender they identify as, but those studies are shoddy and flawed. Brain scans aren’t required to transition, these studies don’t account for nonbinary-identified people, and the brain sex argument has fallen out of favor- so, we’ll say that’s not what’s being discussed here. So, what is? What is this internal gender identity? Can we find it? How do we know everyone has it? And why should it be prioritized over birth sex? What’s being described is, frankly, unverifiable and flimsy. Not to mention quite useless. This doesn’t mean I think that people who claim to have this feeling are lying- they could have something that is interpreted as gender, but that doesn’t mean it’s experienced by the general population, and this feeling could be caused by any number of areas. If this feeling is, indeed, dysphoria at being referred to a certain way, and/or euphoria at being referred to a certain way, again, how can we know this is a symptom of some deep held identity, or a sign of something different? How can we verify this, and while I understand personally adapting language to accommodate someone in your life, why should this take priority over sex for the general population? Gender expression- How is this different than sex stereotypes, and gender roles? While I’m told that this doesn’t need to match general societal expectations, how does that actually work? If you’ve expressing your gender- whether that’s man, woman, or some form of nonbinary- even if you know anyone can dress how they want, even if you say ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ means something different to everyone, you are still making a connection between gender and how one looks- and according to the Miriam-Webster photo, acts. Not only is this, again, ridiculous to elevate this above sex in language and law, it’s unhealthy to hyper focus on how others see you, not to mention confusing and harmful message to constantly use the terms ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ together. I’ll be honest, even if transgender people claim the movement isn’t about stereotypes, I don’t believe that’s the case. At the very least, it’s not the message every one of them got. Conflating gender with sex, and the words ‘men’ and ‘women’ with personality, a feeling, clothes, vibes, interests, or an aesthetic, is a dangerous and ridiculous concept. Instead of what it’s claiming to do- breaking the gender binary- it’s putting men and women in a box, yourself. You are the one limiting what men and women can be. Even if everyone decided to identify as some form of nonbinary, this would not affect the reality of sexism and the perceived inferiority of 50% of the population- it would only paint a coat over it. It would make communication and activism impossible. By conflating experience of autism, or interest in space, or interest in a certain style of dress- with the terms man and woman, you are perpetuating stereotypes, not breaking them.

[mythicalartisttm]

What’s your opinion on transgenders people? I ask as i have seen you reblog a few things and I am unsure on your stance. I mean this in no judgmental way i would just like to know your thoughts

anon this ask both excites me and fills me with caution, but! I will provide you with what you seek!

what do I think about transgender people? Here’s my answer to that, but be warned, it is lengthy!

1) they’re to be treated as people, not outcasts. Human is human, and we are supposed to treat fellow humans with love, care, and respect, even if we don’t agree with the people in question, or if it’s just plain hard.

2) I say this with gentleness: their perceptions of themselves are skewed*, and there are many reasons for this with the primary one being that we live in a broken world, which leads to everything else. But one of the absolute worst things we can do to trans people/ people who want to be trans, regardless of the reason, is to go along with the idea that they are or can be any other gender than the one they were born with. As you can probably tell, I believe in the God of the Bible, and that while human hands may have written the physical book, He speaks through the people that wrote it. So let’s let His Word do the talking.

You know the creation story, yeah? It’s ok if you don’t, let’s recap anyways:

Every day for 6 days, God made aspects of our universe, and when He declared everything finished – perfect! God’s work ain’t finished ‘till it’s perfect – He rested on the 7th day (Genesis 1 and 2). On the 6th day He made humans, male and female, and they were made in the image of God Himself (Gen. 2:26). They were also the only aspect of creation God formed with His own hands; Genesis 2:7 says God made the first man from the dust of the earth, and verses 21-22 says He took a piece of the man to make the first woman.

That might not seem huge to you, but it speaks volumes of the care God put into humanity specifically. Everything else – the sun, stars, sky, trees, dogs, almost everything you can think of – God simply spoke them into existence. But for humans; for you, anon? He got up, got His hands dirty, and shaped your head, your heart, your spirit, your body. He gave humanity a literal special touch that He gave to nothing else.

This is reinforced again by God speaking through king David’s Psalm 139, verses 13-16:

13 You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body     and knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!     Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. 15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,     as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. 16 You saw me before I was born.     Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out     before a single day had passed.

God is omnipresent, meaning that He’s everywhere all the time any time, and nothing escapes His knowledge. This includes the creation of a new human being (again: male or female, no secret 3rd option for this one). And because God Himself – who makes no mistakes – oversees and ordains the creation of every new little boy or girl, wouldn’t it make sense that God would make them as He intended to make them: perfectly, without mistake? There is then no ground for the “born in the wrong body” argument to stand on, because God made your body with you in mind; your body was made specifically for you, and there were no errors on His end.

Now, what if you just straight up don’t like your body? I think everyone has disliked their body and/or felt uncomfortable in it at some point, that includes me. If someone’s going through puberty then they are almost guaranteed to be uncomfortable in their body because that kiddo and their body both are growing up. Sometimes you’re uncomfortable in your body simply because it’s changing, but this particular change is a good thing! Going through puberty is a sign that your body is working as it should, even if it feels weird. To try and block this transition from happening, or deliberately alter it, is to actively harm your body’s natural progression.

So yes, I do think that a trans person’s view of their body – that they were made for a different body and so they should change it – is not only wrong, but harmful to themselves in the long run. Why are we affirming this; giving people of all ages the means to scar themselves to feel good in the now?

Last bit before the TL;DR: if there’s anyone out there who thinks God won’t except them for any reason that you can think of, I’m gonna stop you right there. There is grace for you. Yes, even for that; please refer to my pinned post. And also this.

My explanation doesn’t cover all bases I’m sure, but the TL;DR is that the human body is a sacred thing designed by God, with care, made differently and specifically for every individual person, and it is medical malpractice (evil) to alter it within the context of transgenderism. If you have undergone the gender transition at any time – or have done anything else, ever – God still loves you with his whole heart, and He wants you to let Him help you with whatever may have dragged you down this time. Even if it was self-inflicted.

Lastly, some stuff I didn’t know how to cleanly fit into All That

*it is worth noting that basically everyone has a skewed perception of themselves about different things and to different degrees, but in this context I mean “a skewed perception of how a trans person relates to their body”

Creation was deemed “good” before people, but after people, God declared it “very good.” Again, in Genesis 1. I literally cannot stress enough how much God wants people to come to Him for whatever the reason

Chloe Cole's discussion with Dr. Peterson + the comment section and the testimonies in it

this post

[salemoleander]

I think what you osserved about Cleo and Lizzie is a result of many factors.

Gender is of course one and a major one at that but it cannot be the only one as both Pearl and Gem have much more fandom characterization. Pearls characterisation especially can be attribuited almost entirely to Double Life.

There is also the factor there are a lot less females then males in the mcyt scene and that has always been a problem. But this means that there will always be way more discussion over man because there are so much more.

We should also consider that Lizzie did have a lot of characterisation back in the Empires s1 days that has been swept under the rug as she became inactive for long periods of time, she had a characterisation but this characterisation didn't even apply to the life series because she was never in it like the others, she missed 3rd life, Double life and Limited life which definitely didn't do her any favours. Mumbos characterization on the other hand still existed because he was much more active and when he was in hiatus his fellow Hermits kept reminding us about him... But Lizzie kinda dips for a while and then comes back and is never really mentioned.

Cleo always had the problem of being simplified as either chaotic arsonist, doting mother figure or talented artigian with dark humor... It's been since the 2020 that I have seen people discussing about her characterisation being basically cut down to one of these 3 personality instead of actually giving her actual personality. This was because newbies at characterization back in season 6 usually put either her or Stress as the nurturing mom friend in fanfiction who then other newbies took as inspiration and it kinda stuck around in a loop.

In a way one would need to analyze this problem at the olden days of minecraft content but then we would be here for days.

Putting most of my response under a cut because it got LONG.

To start, I will point out that "this is the result of many factors" and "in a way you'd need to analyze the origins of this, but we don't have time for that" are extremely common & toothless reasons to derail talking about misogyny (or any other -ism).

I do not think you are intentionally replicating that, but anytime an immediate response is "well it's not really ____-ism, and it's so complicated we could never hope to unpack it," that maybe isn't a useful addition to the discussion.

"[Gender] cannot be the only [factor] as both Pearl and Gem have much more fandom characterization"

I agree that gender is not the only factor, but I think going "well SOME women aren't as affected by misogyny so clearly it can't just be misogyny" is inaccurate. Also, if you look at Pearl and Gem's characterization - Gem is pigeonholed to a very particular type of cutesy fighting-princess role, akin to many YA protagonists of late.

Pearl does have more complex characterization from specifically Double Life, but the majority of analysis & attention only started going to Pearl after she won. As DL was airing, much more attention was paid to Desert Duo Redux and Team Rancher and Impdubs etc. I also think the fandom has taken to holding up Pearl as a token and going 'but look, we can write women! Look how many emotions she has. She's sad and likes murder and dogs."

There is also the factor there are a lot less females then males in the mcyt scene and that has always been a problem. But this means that there will always be way more discussion over man because there are so much more.

I agree, it has been a problem forever (I've been watching MCYT since 2012. I watched Cleo & then False join HC. Believe Me, I Know.) But you'll notice my critique wasn't [All Life Series Dudes] are talked about more than [The Much Smaller Number of Life Series Women]. My critique in my post was 'if Lizzie's death happened to a man I would see more posts about that other hypothetical person" - comparing 1 person to 1 person.

We should also consider that Lizzie did have a lot of characterisation back in the Empires s1 days that has been swept under the rug as she became inactive for long periods of time, she had a characterisation but this characterisation didn't even apply to the life series because she was never in it like the others, she missed 3rd life, Double life and Limited life which definitely didn't do her any favours. Mumbos characterization on the other hand still existed because he was much more active and when he was in hiatus his fellow Hermits kept reminding us about him… But Lizzie kinda dips for a while and then comes back and is never really mentioned.

So this paragraph is definitely where you lost me. Your point seems to be 'Lizzie had characterization in S1 of Empires, and we're forced to borrow it because she's so inactive since then, there's nothing to pull from'. Allow me to share a screenshot of her series playlists here.

Let's leave aside the question of why people would pull from Empires S1 characterization when Last Life happened in the middle of it, and would evidently be a more logical place to pull from for Life Series characterization.

She had a whole Afterlife series, and she wasn't inactive after that! She had only 6 fewer episodes in S2 of Empires than in S1. It is patently ridiculous to claim that Lizzie is just so inactive and absent her Empires S1 characterization is necessary to fall back on, when Mumbo has better characterization despite vanishing for an entire calendar year to go biking. That is sexism.

Cleo always had the problem of being simplified as either chaotic arsonist, doting mother figure or talented artigian with dark humor… It's been since the 2020 that I have seen people discussing about her characterisation being basically cut down to one of these 3 personality instead of actually giving her actual personality. This was because newbies at characterization back in season 6 usually put either her or Stress as the nurturing mom friend in fanfiction who then other newbies took as inspiration and it kinda stuck around in a loop.

I'm glad you agree it's a problem! I can definitely see how that problem originated, but I've seen new fandom members for the Life Series - who don't watch HC or read HC fic- duplicate the same problems. I think at some point it's less a fandom-specific issue than a replication of the social division of women into Virgin, Whore, Bitch, or Mother categories, with no ability to imagine women complexly outside of those boxes or continuums.

This fandom seems to think moving the women in and out of the 'Bitch' box is the same as complex characterization*, and we've all just kind of gone 'okay' because the other option is nothing about any women at all. But we can and must do better, because I have to believe we're capable of writing and paying fandom attention to women as people.

*This is where DL Pearl generally falls to me, and why I am dubious of claims that she's well characterized. I think much of the fandom equates cruelty or sadness with good writing/interesting characters. But she's still fundamentally defined by the questions "How nice or mean are you? Are you in a relationship or alone?"

[genderqueerdykes]

Do you have any advice for how to embrace being multigender? I feel like I've spent my whole life trying to fit into one box or the other, my pre teen years I spent forcing myself to be a girl and teen years I spent trying to fit in with my transmasc friends when really I'm both of those things and I can't seperate them. It's hard being something that others see as actively contradictory, but seeing you be so confident in it gives me hope.

Hey there, thank you, first of all. Second of all, I feel you, we still feel like we need to fit into one box, this or that, male OR female, even though we are confident in knowing that we do not have just one gender. Black and white thinking is very common, and it can be hard to see past at times, especially when others reinforce it. People tell you you have to make these decisions, but there are no consequences for doing so. There have been zero consequences to us being honest about identifying as both a man and a woman

Genders and identities do not cancel each other out, even if they are viewed as "opposites". There is no logical reason why manhood and womanhood cannot co-exist- femininity and masculinity can co-exist, men can be feminine and women can be masculine, so naturally, one can make the next logical step of knowing that people can also be men and women at the same time. None of these things are more powerful than the other or capable of shutting the other down just by existing near it.

Especially when it comes to being trans, you should never have to throw any part of yourself away that brings you joy. If there are parts of you that you can confidently say are you, you are under no obligation to throw those parts of you away. The queer community is about accepting identities that differ from the "norm" and that easily extends to many identities that "don't make sense". The entire point of our community is to accept people with "different" identities, so there's no reason why "contradictory" ones don't belong here

You are allowed to take each part of yourself as it is, while also not having to throw away the rest of you. There are professional athletes who collect anime merchandise, play video games and tabletop RPGs- just because they're physically active and into sports doesn't mean they have to throw away their "nerdy" hobbies. These things are seen as opposites and contradictory, but people who end up liking and being "contradicting" things exist and are all around us.

Also, the concept of multigenderism has existed for a very long time in many cultures- the concept of male and female being opposing forces that can't co-exist is a very recent idea held by white European colonizers. Not every person is multigender, but the presence of multigender people should never be underestimated. We are way more common than people want you to believe. There are lots of us, just know that you're not alone. There are many of us. I hope this can help somewhat. Take care, good luck in your journey -K

[ckret2]

If someone wanted to join the death valley cult but wasn’t a woman what would happen? Would they be excluded or just treated awkwardly or something?

They probably wouldn't even know it exists.

The Death Valley cult doesn't exactly have a facebook page. They're living out in a lonely little compound in one of the most inhospitable landscapes in the United States. You get into the cult one of two ways:

1) you caught Bill's eye and he started haunting your dreams, talking you into adopting a new philosophy, teaching you the "truth" about the world that aligns with the worldview he wants you to have... and then, when he's decided you're brainwashed enough, he goes "you're enlightened enough; you ought to contact some of my other devotees here..."

or

2) you caught one of the cultist's eyes, and she decided to start actively recruiting you, maybe bringing in several other cultists to help keep you 24/7 surrounded by the cult's philosophy until you're cut off from your other family/friends.

Both involve someone already involved in the cult choosing you. And they choose ladies. Bill uses a lot of different tactics and philosophies to seduce people into his various cults, depending on what he thinks would work on them; the Death Valley cult is women that were brought in with some sort of bullshit along the lines of that "divine feminine" "women are inherently more pure and in tune with their instincts" stuff.

(This isn't an opinion Bill himself holds—he thinks human genders are arbitrary and stupid—but you don't start a cult by imposing your beliefs on aliens, you start a cult by exploiting THEIR beliefs and twisting them into knots until they resemble yours.)

If a dude did somehow know they exist—for example, the artists in the Bahamas know how to contact them—and for some reason traveled to Death Valley to knock on their door and say "I believe in Bill, I wanna join," they'd go "okay we'll contact Bill tonight and ask him where you should go." They know there are other pockets of people out there that worship Bill, most of which take males; clearly Death Valley was just this one guy's nearest point of contact through which he could find THOSE groups. He's not staying HERE, obviously. He's NOT staying here. That's final. Go back to your hotel.

If any sort of nonbinary person (or, heck, probably even binary trans person) knocked on their door they'd probably have a very serious discussion about whether this individual "counts" as a woman. And the next time they fall asleep Bill swoops into their dream like "buddy, pal, friend, amigo, why the hell do you wanna move in with a bunch of crazy broads who need to argue about whether you're female enough for them? Yikes, am I right? Get OUT of here. Listen, I'm in contact with this little group that meets in the basement of an art school in San Francisco and they're pioneering forms of genderfuckery two hundred years ahead of their time, I'll give you their address."

But, why would any of the above people show up at the Death Valley compound in the first place? If they're ready to move in with one of Bill's cults, then Bill's directing them to places they'll fit in. A person who doesn't feel at home in a cult is a person who's likely to run from that cult.

[vintage-bentley]

Gender isn't an ideology anymore than being gay is. Me being trans isn't more of an ideology than me being bi. They're just parts of who I am. Stop being so fucking hateful. It's not a conspiracy, it's just part of humanity.

This is one of the major issues with the trans community and its allies: you refuse to admit that your view of gender is in fact an ideology. You treat it like it’s cold hard fact that everyone must believe in, instead of accepting that not everyone even believes in the concept of gender in the first place.

I think part of the issue is that you’re applying negative connotations to the word “ideology”, when really it’s just a neutral word to describe a set of ideas. Here’s the definition from Google:

That second definition especially describes why people say “gender ideology”. Because the trans community and allies do have “ideas and manner of thinking” that are characteristic of them as a group.

Most notably, the belief that one can be “born in the wrong body”, where their gender is mismatched with their sex. This usually requires the belief in some form of a soul, because it describes a “you” that is outside of your physical being. A “you” that existed before you were born, and was placed into the body of the opposite sex. This is an example of mind-body dualism, the belief that the mind and body are separate and distinct from one another.

I don’t believe in any form of souls. I don’t believe that there is a “me” detached from my physical being. I believe that I am my body, and my body is all there is to me. And I believe this about everyone else. This is one of the main reasons I don’t believe in the concept of gender. Because to believe in it, I’d have to also, to some degree, believe in the existence of a disembodied soul. At best, I’d have to believe in mind-body dualism, which I do not.

In other words, just the most basic reasoning for why trans identity exists is a belief, not a fact. And that’s okay! It’s okay to have beliefs about things. It’s pretty much impossible not to. What’s not okay, is insisting that your belief isn’t even a belief, but is real and everyone must agree with it.

Now that we have that foundation of “born in the wrong body” aka the belief in some form of a soul, we can look at other beliefs that the trans community and allies usually hold (thus, ideology):

Gender must be prioritised over sex. Therefore, males must be allowed into female-only spaces if they feel like they are women.

“Woman” and “man” must be defined by gender, not sex. Therefore, women can need to get checked for prostate cancer, and men can get periods. We must change the way we discuss these topics to reflect this (“uterus-havers”, “people with penises”, etc).

Sexual orientations are based on gender, not sex. Therefore, homosexuals can be attracted to the opposite sex as long as the person’s gender identity matches their own (and many say it is immoral to claim otherwise)

These are just the first ones that come to mind, but I’m sure that there’s others I could list if I took my time.

The above list might be obvious and unquestionable to you, because they fit your belief system (ideology). But they do not fit mine.

I believe that sex must be prioritised over gender, because it is real and tangible and is what has the most impact on the way we move through the world (male vs female socialisation, strength, etc). It is also the basis on which women are oppressed globally, and this should not be ignored or denied by prioritising gender.

I believe that “woman” and “man” are synonymous with “female” and “male”, and are the words we use in English to differentiate between a female or male human, and a female and male of another species (mare/stallion, cow/bull, ewe/ram, bucks/does, etc. are examples how we specify other species)

I believe that sexual orientation is based on sex, not gender. A homosexual is physically incapable of attraction to the opposite sex. A lesbian will never be able to be attracted to a male, even if he identifies as female.

I wouldn’t call any of these beliefs “hateful”. They’re just beliefs that are different than yours.

It’s important to note that we even have a different definition of gender itself. I do not believe in gender. I believe that gender is simply the roles and expectations placed upon us based on sex, which have no basis in reality. I believe that these roles and expectations were made up, largely to subjugate the female sex. To me, gender is not a good thing: it’s oppressive. I want to do away with it and just leave us with sex (which would be a neutral descriptor that does not define us, just like hair colour. Because the roles and expectations attached to sex—gender—would be done away with).

This is different from conservatives, who do believe in and value gender. They just believe that gender always matches one’s sex.

The best descriptor I’ve seen for describing the difference between trans, gender critical, and conservative beliefs regarding gender is this:

Conservative: there are only two boxes, you are born in one and can never leave.

Trans: there are many boxes, and you can choose which one you fit into best.

Gender critical: we need to free ourselves from the confines of boxes. There should be no boxes.

(Boxes referring to gender, aka gendered roles and expectations)

What I want you to take away from this, is that:

Belief in trans identity and belief in gender itself is a belief that others do not share.

There are many shared beliefs within the trans community and allies, which form an ideology.

“Ideology” is not inherently negative, it is just an easy way to describe sets of beliefs like the ones that the trans community and allies hold.

And most importantly, it is okay to follow a certain ideology. It is not okay to expect that others also follow that ideology.

If you truly believe that you are the opposite sex, or no sex at all, that’s none of my business. You can believe that, and you can surround yourself with others who also believe it.

But you cannot demand that I believe the same. You cannot deny that your ideology is in fact an ideology, and you cannot demand that everyone accept it as the one and only truth.

[evidence-based-activism]

Hi, @not-yet-so-broken! I wanted to respond to your re-blog of my post since it raised some important points. Unfortunately, (and unsurprisingly since they clearly didn't have any counter-arguments) @genderkoolaid has me blocked, so I can't re-blog that post. As such, I'm responding to your points below:

I'm glad you agree with the basis of my re-blog! I think it's helpful to start with a similar frame of reference. In reference to the rest: I thought it was pretty clear that the op's intention with that post was to: imply female-on-female violence is as common as male-on-female, suggest that separatism is pointless, and criticize people for focusing on male-on-female violence prevention. It was from that lens that I responded to the post, which I think is the main reason why you interpreted my post as you did. I talk a little bit more about female-on-female violence in this post and this post.

To be very clear, my conclusion that men are the primary perpetrator of violence against women is not meant to imply that women's violence is more acceptable or excusable, only less common.

However, I do think that trying to make violence "gender neutral", as I believe the op of that post was attempting to do, causes significant harm. It sounds like you agree with this much? Since this was the frame of reference I started with, my goal in my re-blog was to show why we shouldn't do this, not to actually address solutions for female-on-female violence. This is why I didn't address the issue, not because it is "lesser and 'insignificant'".

---

However, I feel I should point out that there is no evidence that as a whole people are more likely to dismiss female violence than male violence. (I address this point a bit more in those two posts I linked to, which is also where most of the sources are, but I'll reiterate below.) In fact,

Victims appear to report violence by women and men at similar rates

When victims do not report the violence, they appear to have similar reasons for both male and female violence [1]

When convicted, women appear to have similar (or even more severe) punishments as men for equivalent (violent) crimes

There is very little research about public opinion on female vs male offenders, however the little there is suggests crimes (particularly violent crimes) are rated at least as bad/serious when committed by women as men [2]

In terms of same-sex couple violence specifically:

Data on the response from the legal system is frustratingly scare, and somewhat contradictory. For example, [3] indicates that there is little to no difference in prosecutor and police response to same-sex domestic violence when considering cases where the victim doesn't refuse to cooperate, but also indicates victims of same-sex violence (domestic and non-domestic) are more likely to refuse to corporate with law enforcement. Alternately, [4] indicates that same-sex domestic violence incidents are less likely to result in arrest and more likely to result in dual arrest than opposite-sex incidents, although this difference appears to be eliminated with increasing incident severity. A different study [5] found no difference in police perception of same-sex vs opposite sex domestic violence.

Public opinion research is essentially non-existent (or at least, very very difficult to find). I did find a study [6] that showed some differences in perceptions about same-sex domestic violence among crisis center staff, which is obviously important given their extremely significant role in the issue. However, there are some pretty significant concerns with generalizability, given that the sample was not random or representative. In addition, the results were somewhat mixed, in that they indicated statistically greater concern for opposite-sex incidents on some measures (consider situation more serious, consider it more likely the abuse will re-occur, etc.), greater concern for same-sex incidents on some measures (believe it's harder for a same-sex victim to leave, believe same-sex victims were more likely to be financially dependent), and no significant difference on 14 of the 21 measures (perpetrator/victim responsibility, counseling recommendation, etc.). As a side note: the scores also indicate there's a need for more education in the field in general, concerning both opposite- and same-sex abuse.

In my opinion, all of this suggests that the claim that female violence isn't taken as seriously as male violence is a myth, one that's been repeated so many times many people regard it as fact. This is relevant because it means that we can apply solutions to the broad problems of child abuse and domestic violence, rather than requiring separate solutions for male- vs female-offenders.

---

As indicated by the above, I hear the assertion that people are more likely to dismiss women's violence fairly often, but I have never received or found any evidence that this is the case. There are, however, several reasons why this may appear to be the case:

First, there are unfortunately still far too many people who are prepared to dismiss most/any sexual or domestic violence. These people would dismiss violence by both men and women, which appears to the victim as a dismissal of that specific form of violence. This dismissal can be countered by broader social messaging, most of which is about male violence (as it is more common). As a result, victims of female violence are more likely to feel dismissed by society at large. Notably, this is a excellent reason for why we need to address female-on-female violence without diluting the message by comparing or minimizing male violence.

Second, even among those who don't dismiss all/most sexual and domestic violence, there are many who will only recognize overtly violent behaviors. For example, there are some people who believe rape has to involve physical violence or threats of physical violence; they (incorrectly) do not recognize that rape can also be coerced through non-violent means including use of authority, drugs and alcohol, etc. This is relevant because research also shows that female offenders are much more likely than male offenders to use these sorts of "indirect" tactics. As a result, a greater proportion of female crime than male crime may not be taken seriously. However, this is a result of insufficient understanding and/or malicious dismissal of a type of crime not of female offenders specifically (i.e., a crime by a man using these sorts of tactics would be similarly dismissed by people with this view point). Obviously, this is a problem, but the solution to this is a campaign directed at increasing understanding/emphasis of these sorts of violence not one about female-offenders specifically.

Finally, this belief may be what people expect other people to believe, without necessarily believing it themselves. When enough people repeat this, it appears to the public as if it's a common belief without actually having much genuine support. This would suggest that this assertion is based on a widely held (MRA based) myth, more than any actual fact.

Importantly, the above points also mean that, regardless of the empirical findings, many victims will feel invalidated by the people around them. This is absolutely a problem, and it's one that will be reduced by further public education (as it has already been reduced over the past decades). For you personally, I hope the evidence that people (in general) understand the seriousness of women's violence may help alleviate these feelings.

---

All that being said, this still doesn't address what can actually be done about female-on-female violence (or violence more broadly). I have a few thoughts (many of which are already being implemented to varying degrees).

In reference to child sexual abuse (many of these would apply to both male and female abusers):

There's much better awareness that most child molesters are known to the victim (i.e., rather than "stranger danger"), however there's still much too little discussion on the implications of this. For example, many, many, child abusers position themselves as "pillars of the community", in part to get access to victims but also to make it seem inconceivable to other adults that they would ever (or ever intend to) abuse a child. In many cases, these abusers don't just groom the child, they groom the adults around them as well, so that the adults are more likely to ignore or excuse any evidence of abuse as "not possible" given the person's reputation. This is a very significant problem, and one that needs to be addressed to continue making headway in preventing CSA. Increasing awareness of and addressing this problem will help prevent these abusers from gaining and keeping access to kids. (As a note this is a specific manifestation of the first point of the above list.)

More detailed screening of applicants for positions that involve access to vulnerable populations (children, students, juvenile offenders, etc.) would also help with the above problem.

Some (many?) cases of abuse are missed by adults because the children don't have the language needed to communicate the problem (e.g., use of euphemisms for genitals, no discussion of what is considered sexual activity, etc.). Sex education programs aimed at rectifying this is absolutely essential in helping prevent CSA.

Related to the above point: reforms and education for the justice system concerning child-friendly reporting procedures and education for parents to circumvent common issues with child testimony.

Removal of the statute of limitations for CSA (or sex crimes in general).

Increasing education and awareness around child-on-child sex abuse (COCSA). COCSA is becoming an increasing problem around the world, so addressing it is essential.

In reference to intimate partner violence (again many will apply to both male and female offenders):

We need more research into same-sex domestic violence on almost every topic. In particular, I can find no studies concerning the prevalence of situational vs coercive controlling violence in same-sex relationships. This is important because the best response to these types of violence is significantly different (e.g., situational violence may respond to rehabilitation/counseling whereas counseling can make coercive controlling violence worse).

Better education/public campaigns concerning the impact of the "less" or "non-" violent tactics (like drugging, coercion, etc.). Public awareness on this issue is already much better than a few decades ago, but there's much more ground to be covered.

Education about identifying domestic abuse (per the coercive control, responsive, situational violence typology) in general, but also, in particular, for people in positions of power (i.e., police, prosecutors, victim advocates, etc.). Under the current procedures, many victims are being arrested as an abuser when they use responsive violence.

For the female-on-female domestic abuse shelter problem: I don't have a perfect solution, but potentially granting any who seek the shelter access but keeping anyone in a relationship separate from each other (i.e., via separate shelter locations, sheltering with separate volunteers who agree to keep the location confidential even from other advocates/victims/etc.).

Programs concerning rehabilitation for both child and domestic abusers have produced ... inadequate results. I honestly have no idea about improvements in this area for any type of offender, male or female, as despite the wide variety of programs attempted none appear to have a significant success rate/effect size.

---

I hope this clarifies my views on the topic?

In particular, you said "but as victim of abuse i want an answer tho because i never am given any", but I'm not sure what question you're referring to? As such, I tried to address the main points you brought up concerning social views on women's violence and also provide some initial suggestions about how to address domestic/sexual violence.

---

Most references are in the linked posts, the rest are below the cut:

Shannan Catalano. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Bureau of Justice.

Female Offender and Public Opinion - Perceived Seriousness of Crimes and Recommended Dispositions | Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/female-offender-and-public-opinion-perceived-seriousness-crimes-and.

Lantz, Brendan. “Victim, Police, and Prosecutorial Responses to Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparative Approach.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 36, no. 2, May 2020, pp. 206–27. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219894429.

Hirschel, David, and Philip D. McCormack. “Same-Sex Couples and the Police: A 10-Year Study of Arrest and Dual Arrest Rates in Responding to Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence.” Violence Against Women, vol. 27, no. 9, July 2021, pp. 1119–49. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220920378.

Younglove, Jane A., et al. “Law Enforcement Officers’ Perceptions of Same Sex Domestic Violence: Reason for Cautious Optimism.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 17, no. 7, July 2002, pp. 760–72. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017007004.

Brown, Michael J., and Jennifer Groscup. “Perceptions of Same-Sex Domestic Violence Among Crisis Center Staff.” Journal of Family Violence, vol. 24, no. 2, Feb. 2009, pp. 87–93. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9212-5.

[heterophobicdyke]

hiii it's that one trans anon again <3

i saw your responses, and really think you fundamentally misunderstand what being trans is. nobody's going "well I'm feminine, that must mean I have to be a woman!" or the other way around. gender identity and gender presentation are two very different things. there are plenty of butch trans women or trans femboys, for example.

there is no fundamental blueprint that makes someone a man/woman, in any way that actually matters, as gender is a social construct. sure chromosomes exist, but in terms of gender they literally just affect what genitals (and therefore hormones) are received. and obviously, genitals don't define gender (as i assume you must have heard dozens of people explain the concept of Being Intersex before, and I won't get into that) and hormones, in their very easily replaceable nature, don't either.

there's parts of the brain that do determine what hormones need to be in the body and what gender the body "should" be - but shockingly enough, the brain doesn't always line up with the body. that's fundamentally the cause of being trans. in layman's terms, the brain is one gender and the body is another. this causes severe stress and discomfort in most cases.

trans people, once they figure out this is happening to them (if ever - society doesn't exactly make it easy), attempt to correct this by making the body align with the brain. hormones, surgeries, etc.

so you are technically correct - "inverting a penis" (which isn't even how bottom surgery works lmao, the tissue from the penis atrophies and becomes a clitoris under oestrogen, with a new hole opening up just below via surgery) wouldn't turn a man into a woman. in fact, if you took a 100% cis man and forced him to undergo a transition, he'd suffer just like a pre-transition trans man would. however, trans people never were their assigned gender at birth, and gender affirming surgery only serves to correct an incorrect body.

i will admit i was wrong in my "definition" of radical feminism, it's not as simple as that and i definitely made it sound weirdly bloodthirsty and naive. i am willing to accept that i am (i hope quite obviously) not very involved in radfem spaces. are you willing to accept you have no clue what being trans is?

Well, that was a mansplain if I’ve ever read one.

While you might not value or acknowledge that humans are a sexually dimorphic species—where intersex is a medical condition that affects less than 0.5% of the population and therefore does not disprove male/female exists—that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Brain-sex has been disproved so many times. It’s old misogyny. There are no notable differences between male and female brains. To suggest there is is just neurosexism. Read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

Male and females are different physically. “Just chromosomes” is such a reductive, delusional thing to say. Chromosomes dictate every cell in our body. “Just reproductive systems.” Bro the reproductive systems aren’t a footnote of the human body but interact with every part of it.

Your self-identity does not change reality, sorry to say. Wish it did because then I’d self-identify as living in a peaceful world without straight men or their guns and bombs.

Males have no idea what it’s like to be female, or women—which are just adult females—and vice versa. In the same way I don’t know what it’s like to be a cat or a dog. I simply am not that thing/animal/sex.

Nobody actually believes male and female don’t exist or matter, they just place less importance on it for trans-identified people’s feelings. They’re too scared to “cause someone’s suicide” because Big Trans convinced everyone they’re Literally Murdering People if they verbally acknowledge basic scientific facts about the sexed bodies.

I don’t hate individual trans-identified people, unless you’re a male attracted to females and identify as a woman. Then I hate you because you’re not a victim to heteropatriarchy just trying to survive through a gender identity, but are just another straight male lesbian fetishist.

[philosophicalconservatism]

Response To Post On Transphobia

the-psudo

"By 'transphobes' they don't mean someone who feels malice toward a particular set of people. They mean people who perceive some harm arising from ostensibly harmless conduct. If they're not picking your pocket or breaking your leg or similar, what justifies your getting involved in their business?"

philosophicalconservatism

I'll say this again. Cross dressing, drag shows, hormone therapy/sex reassignment surgery for adults, all of this has existed for ages and most of us never cared a bit about it. We do not care about how any adult chooses to live their life, or how they choose to perceive themselves; that is what liberty means. What we care about is the attempt to forcefully impose those same perceptions onto the rest of us; that is the opposite of liberty. The current ideological movement in question here involves an attempt by certain parties on the Left to shape our conduct and our beliefs; and therefore it is an attempt to intrude into our business. Laws have been passed in states like New York and California, and in nations like Canada which literally dictate how people are to speak concerning sex/gender (employers, landlords, educators etc.)

An endeavor to positively dictate how people speak (to determine what concepts they must employ and how) is an endeavor to dictate public belief. At the same time, we are all collectively informed that to willfully refuse to use this language is to exhibit "hate". The political Left has a peculiar practice of attempting to forcefully dictate public belief (which is by definition intruding into people’s private lives) and then, when they are called out for doing so, complaining that their critics are somehow the ones intruding into people's lives by objecting to those policies.

Requiring private businesses to adopt a certain eccentric ideological perspective concerning sex/gender, and demanding that they alter their policies accordingly is also more than merely allowing people to “live their own lives”. It is the imposition of one subjective, highly questionable worldview onto all of society. Meanwhile, certain other unfortunate parties are left to suffer the practical consequences of this world view: young girls and female athletes lose access to valuable life opportunities, and in other instances (high contact sports) are physically brutalized by biological males. Female inmates are housed with and raped by male prisoners who don't "identify as men", and all under a system which intimidates these girls and women into silence and compliance, making them the offenders if they complain about the unfairness.

Finally, when we speak of the citizen's sovereignty over himself, it is implicitly understood that we are referring to adults. Children/minors do not possess the same rights as adults. They are overseen both by their parents and by the state (due to the potential for parental neglect and abuse). Furthermore, there are certain things that children cannot do even with a parent's consent because we believe they are not things that a child can elect to do. For example, in many states children are not allowed to possess alcohol even with a parent's consent. Children are not allowed to work certain jobs, to work certain hours, or in any other manner not consistent with child labor laws. Therefore, I don't believe that life altering and permanent decisions such as those in question in the gender ideology debate should be made by minors. When they are adults, they may do as they will. They are adults.

I have never taken the position that a person with Gender Dysphoria merely living their own life and making their own decisions was harmful to anything. What is harmful is imposition upon others.