#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.

[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.

[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.

[oddtransfem]

Welcome to my blog 𖤐

I am Mera. I am a black and Native American intersex lesbian transfeminist who creates theory on underdiscussed topics. I am an AV (assignment-variant) transgender woman. For more on what that means, see here.

For my other intro post:

https://www.tumblr.com/oddtransfem/760470782157651968/mera-lastname-chimericbeautybskysocial

Yes, at birth I was designated female. That event has impacted my experience with and relationship to transfemininity/transmisogyny. Regardless, like any other trans person, I do not identify with the gender assigned to me at birth. I identify as a woman, which I was not assigned. Yes “female” and the social category of woman are two different things.

On this blog, “female” refers to patriarchal gender assignment and gender norms which determine that women should be defined by immutability, sexual subjugation and essential biological traits. Here, it does not describe biological sex or gender identity. Do not misunderstand me.

My essay delves into this further. If that makes you uncomfortable feel free to ignore me, block me or even send me asks with critiques of my analysis. A good theory holds up to scrutiny which I believe mine does. I'm open to conversation and discussion, though I expect a basic understanding of marginalization dynamics on your part.

White people, that means stop making false race comparisons.

I also won't tolerate transphobia (associating me with my assigned sex ie. calling me “an AFAB”) or purposeful misrepresentation of my posts or beliefs. If you're here to treat me as “less trans” than other trans women or to tell me I deserve less of a voice or a narrative in transfeminine spaces then kindly fuck off.

I will block TwERFS, transphobes, trans/misogynists, racists, etc. or harassment on sight.

My posts of personal experience are based on my own struggles as a target of transmisogyny, I share them partly because this site needs more black transfeminized narratives but also to show how someone like me exists as a trans woman.

For more information, see my Bluesky, Substack, or Medium.

Block #transmisogyny tw and #transmisogyny cw if that content triggers you. Check my featured tags in the search for more.

FAQ

Is this an AFAB transfem blog?

This blog is about transfeminized people in general. Sometimes that does include people who weren't assigned male at birth, transgender people with feminine gender identities that fundamentally don't align with what their assignments and that resist patriarchal gender norms. Therefore I consider them under the transfeminine umbrella.

Do you support AFAB transfems?

In large part yes, I've come to a lot of different conclusions having surrounded myself with the community and in short I can say that I do.

I don't appreciate the fact that there is such an emphasis on "AFAB" as part of the label but I understand there isn't much of another common way to communicate the same concept.

Are you an AFAB transfem?

Even though technically I was assigned female at birth and am transfeminine, please do not call me “AFAB”. Referring to me as “an AFAB” associates with me my gender assignment which greatly upsets me. I would never describe another trans woman as “an AMAB” so don't do that to me. Neither AFAB nor AMAB is a social category or identity. It is a description of the coercive designation society assigns to infants at birth that determines what they're supposed be.

I am a trans woman because I am trans in relation to my gender assignment — of which I do not identify — and utterly and entirely a woman.

Are you TME or TMA?

Considering that I am literally a trans woman who's womanhood is subject to being revoked or used againt me at any moment, as well as my being frequently targeted and affected by transmisogyny it would be mistaken to consider me TME. This acknowledges my material reality and lived experiences with that, regardless of your opinion, greatly interact and intersect with my oppression. I have lived with the internal experience of being trans ever since I was born and an external one for years now; excluding transmisogyny from an assessment of my marginalization leaves out crucial factors that contribute to my social position.

Transfeminism?

I am a very avid transfeminist. My theory, my accounts, my blog is all based around it. I have done a lot of reading and a lot of living which has influenced my own analysis. Do not assume that because of my assignment I am for some reason naïve surrounding topics within transfeminism. I have intricate knowledge of gender assignment and the functions of marginalization especially.

Don't bother to argue with me if you can't explain to me how marginalization as a whole generally works.

[velvetvexations]

the way you murdered that guy talking out of his ass (still speechless at “legion of death and destruction”) was very sexy and cool if this was the oppa homeless style era he would just be making up stories about that time he beat up a cop for being transmisogynistic and everyone clapped

and I got my own everyone clapped moment out of it, it was great

I'm starting to think we should set the word "privilege" aside for a little bit and try to talk about things in terms of something like "advantage". Say, is there a capital "P" Privilege binary (trans) people have over nonbinary people? Eh, questionable. But I certainly can name a few situational advantages a binary trans person would have in my situation, and I would be open to discuss the advantages I have, without making it a black-and-white issue of who has a privilege over whom.

that's really smart imo I like that idea a lot

Wanted to say as a transmasc I also don't think the way you talk about transmasc TRFs is a problem given it's the exact same way you talk about transfem TRFs. I always took transradfem to be the same as radfem in the sense that it does not denote gender but an ideology, you do not have to be a transfem to be a transradfem/believe in and uphold transradfeminism. TRF transmascs are not exempt from criticism, especially when they go the extra mile of openly owning the misogyny the TRF ideology labels them with. Like if a cis man was siding with radfems on the grounds that he is a misogynist and all men are actually and the radfems are right and then going around and beating up other men...I'd criticize that. Heavily. Tmascs are not exempt from this. Like, acting like ANY group is exempt from criticism due to their oppressed status is bullshit and reductive and not something we should normalize. Transfems are not exempt from having their radical feminism called out, and neither are tmascs and nonbinary people and cis people. No one is incapable of bigotry, we can all be monsters, it is important to recognize that. And right now that includes critizing all TRFs, even ones who are transmasc. And again it's indistinguishable from how you talk about transfem TRFs so like I do not see the problem.

Thank you for saying so anon~!

I love how you take these pretentious assholes and expose them for how ridiculous they are

It's difficult. To paraphrase Penny Arcade, it's like making fun of a clown, what are you going to do, make fun of his floppy shoes?

If it were simply a matter of telling people the truth, there would be no flat earthers or anti vaxxers. There'd be no anti trans moral panic, or any other moral panic for that matter. Human belief can be more about what feels true than what is, even if the reality is more appealing.

It's a bleak species we're a part of.

Funny (sarcasm) how TRFs go around accusing trans mascs of being MRAs and then turn around and spout a bunch of bullshit about "AFAB privilege," as if that isn't just the "woke" version of incels talking about "female privilege"

And then they're like, "how dare you compare trans women to MRAs," and you're like "okay but you are saying that being born with a vagina means society will always favor them when they make false sexual assault complaints"

i think binary privilege is really simple to explain: male and female are genders that exist in society, and there are no other genders that are recognized by society. so if you're a man or a woman, you exist and can interact with society, but if you're a different gender, you have to pretend to be a man or a woman in order to do most things in society. like to go to the doctor, get a drivers license, go to most schools, file other government paperwork, etc, and even to do fun things like sports or even social things like the local trivia night, i have to either pretend to be a man or pretend to be a woman, because there are no other options and you aren't allowed to not disclose your gender or not be categorized by it. and if you say you dont have a gender or dont want to be categorized by gender, that isnt acceptable and they make you anyway. but men and women don't have to do this because they can say to treat them like either a man or a woman and this is correct for them, and at least where i am, you are allowed to transition and be treated as either a man or a woman even in the government, it is only nonbinary that is considered to not exist at all. there is transphobia of course, but it is "this gender exists and you just cant call yourself it," but the nonbinary stuff is more "this doesn't exist at all, and you could transition to the opposite gender, but you have to pick one." i hope this was understandable, i have a hard time articulating this stuff!

You did fine! I think that gets at the heart of the issue, although as others have said it's very conditional.

100% agree with the discussion of binary privilege but can we stop saying "oppressor". If it's true that trans men don't have the power to oppress trans women then it can't be possible for binary trans people to oppress nonbinary trans people either.

Yeah I don't think it's ever been a particularly great word.

Hey i just wanted to say thank you so much, you’re so fucking fabulous. Happy holidays if you're celebrating and, if not, I hope you have a fantastic evening!!

You as well~!

none of the asks talking abt the deactivated guy couldve prepared me for seeing the actual post mf had a dictionary open next to him for that one jesus fucking christ. "coalesced" "absconded" and "schism" killed me

he was trying his hardest

Wtf is happening?! Call me naive, but I thought this tirf stuff was a Tumblr, maybe reddit, only problem. I'm not on FB often and I JUST joined blue sky, but already I see it on both platforms. On FB a woman was ranting about how gay men don't need representation because they're the most privileged and have all the media. She got some pushback and immediately started using the word "moid" and defended trans women all in the same paragraph. That is TERF language. They're seriously using TERF words now. How bad is this actually going to get? I'm a recluse, so I genuinely don't know how common this is in irl spaces, but things aren't looking too good online. It looks like it's about to become the LB(women only)T(women only) Q(women only) community vs Lgbtq+ normal people.

hilarious news for the person who insisted 'moid' is an insult intended to mean trans women exclusively

different anon than the others talking about binary privilege but i do think that binary privilege is a thing. however, i think it is extremely conditional, even more so than most other forms of privilege. i consider myself both binary and nonbinary because i'm multigender and i'm not taken seriously no matter how i introduce myself but there is a vast difference between when i introduce myself as only a binary man vs when i introduce myself with all of my genders or just any of my nonbinary genders.

yeah I for sure see that

I wish people would stop treating bigotry as a logical thing and other people’s experiences with it as something that can be extrapolated from your own personal experiences with it. Something similar happened in disabled circles (people are shitty to me because my illness is something they can’t see and they think I’m faking it, so they must treat people with visible illnesses better) and it really sucks to see it happening with trans people, too. We’re a family! We can listen and learn from each other!

Yesss, solidarity is so important and I see transfems given so much, it sucks when it's not repaid.

Has any1else noticed the autoandrophilia tag is completely destroyed by terf bots...

They fill up all the TERF and TERF-adjacent tags, which goes to show that TERFs do in fact accuse trans men of autoandrophilia on a regular basis lmao.

everytime i see binary trans women try to claim they are the only ones who care abt and are inclusive towards nonbinary trans fems or amab nonbinary people in general i think abt when my ex girlfriend told me (binary trans man) not to install our AC by myself and i should wait for "a real man" to do it...talking abt our nonbinary partner who did not identify as a man at all. and when i corrected her and said that was really hurtful to both me and our other partner she was like "oh u know what i mean youre just really small and [they] are bigger and stronger" and i was like. girl wtf are u Saying thats misgendering and transphobic??? i could rant abt her for ages but i will leave it at that lmao

wild how that keeps happening

My hot take about "binary privilege" is that it does actually exist but not like that and it's not gender thing. Its a social conformity thing. The west in particular is built on false dichotomous thinking and everything is binarized and conforming to binarism provides social privileges relevant to the social axis (i.g Democrats vs Republicans necessarily hold power over Independent parties due to the binarist structures of politics) like the problem isn't that one is or has a binary gender, it's about conforming to social binarism to access benefits, and that means a lot of things and none of them are "binary trans people have more privilege" bc Trans is Trans. Maybe this is why some binary trans women act like being trans women make them non binary, they recognize how transness inherently challenges aspects of the sex binary. Then kind of take that too far, into "identity as praxis" zones

Unfortunately some people define themselves by their gender identity and literally nothing else.

The tme/tma is very exorsexist, coming from a bigender freak who either looks like a trans woman or a trans man but can't ever look cis. Are the bouts of transmisogyny I experience tma or does that not count unless they know my asab? Are they invalid if my asab isn't the 'right one'? What about my enby friends or genderfluid friends who enjoy breaking those gendered expectations by not being one of the two genders at all? What about the oppression and harm they've faced because of transmisogyny? Does harm because of transmisogynistic povs only count as transmisogyny if you were born and told you're amab (and perisex)? Why can't we discuss the transmisogyny to trans women, and how it affects trans women, and also how that transmisogyny can and will bleed out into there, the same as transandrophobia, the same as exorsexism? I'm just fucking sick and tired of being told that I can't experience transandrophobia when I definitely have, that I can't experience transmisogyny until I reveal my asab, that certain people only experience certain axes of oppression without being in that group of people. We bleed the same to the shitheads who want us quiet and dead, let's stop killing ourselves over who's more oppressed. Being tma or tme doesn't change that you have to hold on to and stand with the freaks who break your rules to not only survive, but live.

We'll all get to where we're going together, one way or another.

I saw someone basically mock people being marked red on Shinigami eyes as “trans men whining because they’re objectifying trans women” but 1. Intersex people opposing TME/TMA as a strict binary have also been purposefully targetted, 2. Trans Women & trans fems who have been saying “hey this is all very radical feminist of you” have been targetted (such as yourself, thank you btw) & 3. A trans streamer I follow who, seemingly, has NOTHING to fucking do with this discourse except maybe host “TME” people on her channel on occasion? Maybe??? Or had once cut ties with a friend who was specifically harassing another friend? Has been marked red so idk!!! like it is exhausting to see someone I used to follow and admire reduce this whole thing to “well trans men are horny sexist pigs, so this is all working as planned” when in most cases, the very people you’re Claiming to advocate for are also being thrown into the machinery

yeah but it's not happening to them so why would they care

i remember years ago, i (nonbinary) was rooming with a (binary trans) guy. he brought a friend over one night and we were all chatting. at one point, his friend asked what the difference was in experience of being binary versus nonbinary - not in the internal experience of gender sense, but in navigating the world - and my roommate said "there's really no difference." of course i jumped in and said no, hey, there's a lot of differences! at the time, there was no X gender marker available anywhere (except in iirc washington state?? which we did not live in), doctors in the area wouldnt pursue ANY medical transition unless you committed to full strength hormones+top and bottom surgery, and judges wouldnt approve name changes for gender reasons unless you were committing to "full" transition. i dont know how much of this was legislation and how much was social contract, tbf, but that was the situation we lived in. and he just......looked at me, rolled his eyes, called me crazy, and kept talking like nothing had happened. this isnt really "proof" of one group of trans people having it worse than another or anything - laws have changed a lot since then, and ive been able to self select for an X gender marker and pursue the transition i want! - but file it under "examples of exorsexism"

I'm very sorry anon, you both deserve to be treated better than that. <3

What's with this weird rebranding of baeddels I've been seeing 🤔 people acting like theyre hated on for being cringe, people acting like their haters came up with the word baeddel rather than them coming up with it themselves? I've seen it from people who see the transandro v transradfem discourse seem equally ridiculous on both sides but it just feels forced to me. Maybe that's just my own experience, though! Besides that, how have you been?

Devastatingly sick.

just saw a trans guy with two posts on his blog like a few days max apart. one said trans guys are exempt from misogyny bc they're not women. the other said that transandrophobia is just transphobia + misogyny so it doesn't need a name. I just. do they not read what they post???

they don't read

the thread you've pointed out of self described tme trans men being obsessed with insisting that they are definitely a big scary threat who must watch their every move to avoid accidentally (social) murdering the soft and gentle women around them is soooooooo funny to me now it's been pointed out because i genuinely think a lot of these dudes need to do some soul searching on whether or not they just have a kink for being perceived as dangerous 'cause i know i do. and i know its because im a short, disabled, never-passing trans man

you're so valid though anon

just got condescendingly called babygirl in the notes of a post responding to the "bomb that kills all transmascs" post and i'm like having whiplash. i cant even see my reply or the person's full reply because i think the op deleted my comment (fair, i am hardly eloquent or thoughtful with wording when i am upset) so all i have in my notifs is "hey babygirl, real quick-" before it cuts off. like... one the one hand thank god but on the other i wish all radfems a very please get out of my notifs. i think i'm going to step further away from the discourse because i also think they accused me of being a zionist (i posted about hannukah one (1) time and they had like. 'zionist reciepts' in their username) and i'm just. i'm so tired man. why can't we all relax. why can't we all be chill. like i don't know them, they don't know me, so why do we have to hate each other so much? aren't y'all tired? i know i am. - strawberry anon (not associated with the alligator. i just like strawberry crush)

TRFs are obsessed with transandrobros being Zionists because they are all in on the viral sensation that is performative Gaza support

Can I say it's so fucking disheartening to be a trans guy who is just, like, normal. I'm not transmisogynistic, and I firmly believe that most other transmascs are the same, so it's irritating to constantly see all this "we're asking you to do better" bull. I know plenty of transmascs and none of us are out here social murdering anybody. And sure, maybe it's unfair of me, but I am tired. of. hearing. it.

As you should be. Love you anon. <3

Im not naming names, but I feel like it become obvious to me how malicious TRFs on this site are when I witnessed a teenage, transmasc blogger living in a country where being transgender is extremely dangerous, be harassed by a group of white, American, TRFs. Seeing them openly brag about it and mock him over it, and then witness people running to their defence, even going as far as to claim the user who initiated the harassment wasn’t a radfem and people should “just leave her alone” despite her having posted about wanting to hurt trans men and calling them slurs. I’m sure you’re aware of what I’m talking about here but I feel like that was the breaking point for me giving this group any benefit of the doubt and honestly I’m just glad you’re doing a good thing here

You should name names.

twin peaks anon here again to tell you that my friends joke that I "microdose twin peaks" because I used to only watch ~5 minutes of it a day.

weird but also Twin Peaksian

the sunnydinthereal bullshit is stressing me outttttt 😭 the usual trfs finally found a tguy saying transmisogynistic shit that no one is supporting, and now they’re reblogging it over and over and holding him up like “look at the typical transandrobro. they’re all just like this” lmao.

that's just normal lol they were already pointing out the odd radfem trying to come into the tag acting like it's shocking that a TERF would try and take advantage of conflict between trans people by ASAB

[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?"

[genderisareligion]

I really despise how the trans movement uses black women, women who have undergone hysterectomies, women who are infertile and intersex women to validate themselves.

They’re all females and they’re not comparable to a transgender male who has undergone hormone treatment and surgeries and who is choosing to present as a woman and live as such. I just don’t see any point in denying reality when it’s not beneficial to any side.

I was very much pro before and I still believe that transwomen should be included in the women category, but I just don’t like how the female sex has been modified and erased in the name of inclusion.

We can coexist while accepting our differences. You can’t even say adult human female that you’re immediately labeled a nazi…I’m just feeling so conflicted about it all.

You are not alone. I’ve seen many gender critical women say that they started off completely supportive of trans rights, and despite what trigger happy “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler” genderists would have you believe, most are still in favor of those that are actually rights, as am I, like freedom from violence for being GNC, shelter, safe spaces and access to the same healthcare as anyone else

But the problem is that gender identity is a nebulous concept with oppressive contructs and no physical location in the body despite being called innate more and more. What I do think actually exists is sex dysphoria (which genderists just call gender dysphoria now), but like you say, call it that, acknowledge that every single cell in our bodies is sexed so SRS isn’t really doing what Big Pharma says it is (which some transmeds and transsexual identified people are fine knowing), or acknowledge detransitioners and medical malpractice in the name of trying to help, and you’re a pariah 

Criticism does not equal hate, I wish more people got that. Criticizing gender as a whole for the damage it’s done to the world does not equal hating all gender subscribers 

[chevelleneech]

Namjoon sure loves posting a man with a heart emoji on his Instagram…

On a serious note, I live for these days. Het fans get so fucking angry about the speculation that follows, because they want to be Chosen by the members so bad, and I can’t fathom it. BTS do not know any of us, and have spent over ten years in this industry. They know good and well how their every action is perceived, and while I do not and will never condone invasive behavior, people saying Namjoon is a bisexual who dates men, is not that.

What was invasive was when his friend and frequent collaborator was harassed by fans for simply daring to exist near Joon. He wasn’t just bombarded by fans who assumed him to be Joon’s boyfriend either, but also by fans who felt like he was using him for fame.

The fans willing to go into people’s comment section to ask them personal questions about the members are really and truly the only “enemies” within the fandom. Because there is nothing wrong with speculating about the dating life of a celebrity, particularly when they themselves voluntarily talk or post about their dating lives. Joon does both, so why would the line stop at his potential straight relationships?

Because news flash… we don’t actually know if the toxic shit he’s been in was with women. We know he’s used female pronouns, but he’s also spoken on relationships with male pronouns. We also know he’s not out to the mass public and media, so allowing the assumption to be “women” is also a reasonable choice given his life and career. So to me it does not make any sense to solely believe that the man who has written albums about getting his heartbroken and being in toxic and unhappy relationship, while also only ever posting men on his social media for years, has only ever dated women.

It genuinely makes the most sense to assume he is either closeted and uses female/gender neutral pronouns to hide his gay relationships in his music, or (and this is my preferred theory) he is bisexual and only posts his male partners to avoid the media speculating on his love life the way they would if he posted women too, and he uses female/gender neutral pronouns more often than not because that also helps him avoid a media uproar. It’s honestly as simple as that in my head.

So while obviously have no reason to believe the person in his photo is his boyfriend, encouraging the laughs is great. Because why is it okay to assume this person hid his strictly platonic friend or employee he’d never date, but not okay to assume is his romantic partner? In what way is assuming he has a new boyfriend worse than assuming he has a new friend? Seriously. Do those people hear themselves? Every single person a member interacts with is assumed a friend in some capacity, but never when it matters.

Women are defended as potential future wives whom fans should be accepting of (unless it’s a woman they don’t like), and all men are friends or coworkers or family. There is zero space left for queerness between these two extremes, but let those who push this narrative tell it, that’s the best way to be a “real fan.” Good Females = wife and mother, Any Male = best bro.

Anyway, I’m getting repetitive, but I stand by it. Namjoon could be taken or could be single, it doesn’t matter at the end of the day. What does for me, is making sure homophobic fans never know peace. Every time they open a new app, I want them to see queer speculation. Even if he announced his long time girlfriend tomorrow, I want homophobic fans to know I will still wonder if he’s bisexual. I just will, because it’s not harmful to question if a guy who says questionably queer shit, might be queer.

[eepwtf]

That catholic boy ask sent me into a spiral and made me think about things that I have to yap about.

So for me, x readers on the surface have been a thing that people read as a self-insert or to feel like they’re a part of the story in some way. They have a long history when it comes to works that are titled as “x readers” but have very defining traits that expand on how the reader or “you” look- such as sentences like “He looked into your pale blue eyes.” or “You card your fingers through your silky platinum blond hair.” and then the person reading has neither of those physical traits and instantly feels disconnected from the story. This is especially true for groups who are… less likely to be characters in any form of literature or media, or people who exist as a minority in fanbases. This also goes for stories that claim to be GN but have gendered terms for the reader

Now, it’s not necessarily about works that have gendered terms or some defined physical traits, I think it’s mainly about the false advertisement / lack of warning, because a lot of people come in thinking a story is going to be inclusive and it turns out it isn't. If you want to write a story about a male or female character with red hair and freckles, go ahead, but let people know beforehand so they know what they’re committing themselves to read. Doing this doesn’t automatically turn readers away. For example, works that give characters disabilities, or first person books that give a character description on the back. People still read those even if they can’t physically relate to the character. And an interesting thing to think about is some readers don’t actually insert their names into Y/N or [Name]. Some just kind of skip over it when they’re reading. I also really love how some writers don’t use placeholders, but write out that a character calls out your name. 

It is hard for me to put into words the differences second person stories / x readers have to first POVs / x readers.... or just x readers in general. You’re put into a fictional world, and while you’re reading words like I and you… it’s not quite I and it’s not quite you. 

That’s where it gets foggy. You have a generally blank character who’s physical traits are unimportant / adds nothing to the story, so what does that leave… oh yeah, personality! The problem is, you can’t write a character with a blank personality, it’s boring and disengaging, and the people reading aren’t “blank people”. Obviously you can’t write a character that appeals to everyone on a personal level, since everybody is unique and reacts to situations in different ways. But that’s to be expected. No one expects you to write their biography in an x reader. So, you have to get creative because that's what drives the story... that's why people read.... mostly? idk

But should you draw the line at one point when fleshing out a character? The writer in me says no, and the reader in me that loves plot also says no. But that’s just my personal preference. As a writer and a reader I love main characters who actually feel… alive? Especially for longer stories/series, where the reader/main character isn’t solely focused/based on one character of interest- like they don't only exist to be the love interest’s other half. They have a family, their own quirks, their own friends, conflicts, interests, etc. I mean, that’s what most stories are about right? The story?

I drafted a TASM fic like this that I believe makes the story more interesting, but idk. It’s just the small things. Reader has motion sickness, they have a collection of funky cool pens, they wrinkle their nose at the mention of spiders, they’re afraid of heights, they fold cucumber slices and bite into them to avoid eating the skin… It just- builds the story and gives you so much to work with, and this builds their relationship with Peter. He notices these little things and it just makes him fall for them more. Finding out the hard way about their nausea when he swings around to rescue them as Spiderman? Coming to their rescue with medicine and support whenever their motion sickness gets bad? Ordering cucumbers on his sandwich just so reader can steal them, but he actually doesn't like cucumbers? Peter who flinches anytime Reader makes a sarcastic remark about spiderman being so… spidey, and shivering at the thought? Reader who overcomes their fear of heights when they explore their new powers? These little plot points help characters navigate their relationships and conflicts. When does Reader start to like Peter and why? How does their reactions / relationships change because of it? How do their goals and values and personal circumstances affect how they navigate their feelings and their decisions? And vice versa.

Sigh… i went on a tangent nwjekgvewsjhnrkt this probably makes no sense

TLDR: “it's more about embodying a character than just projecting oneself as a blank slate.” or whatever idk

- 🫐

this makes so much sense, and you articulated it beautifully. & you’re so right—there’s such a delicate balance between crafting a dynamic, engaging reader-insert character and maintaining enough flexibility for the reader to still feel like they belong in the narrative.

the issue with false advertisement in x-reader works is so important. claiming something is inclusive (e.g., GN or neutral in appearance) and then slipping in gendered terms or specific physical traits without warning is super frustrating and alienating. its not necessarily about those traits existing—it’s about managing expectations and ensuring the right audience can find the story that’s meant for them. a little tag or heads-up can go a long way!

&& i love what you said about giving the reader character depth. personality quirks, fears, habits, or hobbies that weave into the plot make the character (and the story!) feel so alive. those small, intentional details—like motion sickness, funky pens, or their fear of spiders—create opportunities for natural, meaningful interactions between the reader character and the love interest.

& honestly, the peter x reader ideas you shared are amazing. not only are those details charming, but they also open doors to rich storytelling. like peter noticing and adapting to the reader’s quirks—it’s such a tender way to deepen their connection. & the way their fears or little habits influence the narrative? it keeps the plot grounded in something real and relatable.

[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.