#i feel like I kind of ignored binary trans people in this discussion

[jellyfemmedyke]

I think people underestimate the effect of being fat on gender. Like tips and tools for passing for any gender often just don't consider fat people. Gendered norms don't consider fat people. Fat people are so often degendered and viewed as worth less because of it. This also affects trans people's ability to enact their gender or pass. I often see skinny trans people talking about their experiences and stuff and it's like a whole other world of experiencing gender and I don't think this is talked enough about as a significant intersection of identity (because of fatphobia and the rhetoric of weight being a choice). Like there will be the occasional mention of don't listen to passing tips that say to slim down or whatever but rarely a full nuanced discussion of how gender as a whole works differently for fat bodies

Thank you for putting into words the exact feelings I've had for a long time.The way my fat body shapes my gender is something that I can't ignore. I remember growing up in the early and mid 2000s where the titular "girl" were people like Hilary Duff and Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez, thin and cute and and completely unachievable for me.

I remember having meltdowns at the store when I saw those little pink rhinestone shirts where the curves were preset. I remember going to hot topic and seeing the clothing that wouldn't even fit one whole boob if I tried to put them on.

It was devastating. Learning I was non binary eased this a lot, making me realize I didn't have to try so hard to pass as a cis girl anymore but Even still, trying to live as a man wasn't any easier, men have the same devastating weight standards.

With the talk of Gym bros having eating disorders and everything. They have same kind of toxic gender expectation, except now It's that you have to be big and strong. You can almost get away with it if you're "Strong" fat, but having visible breasts or a hanging tummy or soft face will degender you just the same. Fat people are not allowed to have a gender until we "lose an acceptable about of weight."

We're almost On standby mode, saying things like "when I lose weight I'll finally be happy, when I can fit into those clothes I'll finally be loved and accepted. When i lose weight I'll finally be the real me"

which is reinforced by media and those around you. We have to over perform gender to be even a little bit included, and then that might not even work if you're in a larger fat body. And god if this isn't 12000% reinforced when It comes to transgender expectations.

I mean you see it when people post about how sad and fat they were pretransition, and then become beautiful thin butterflies post transition. You can see it in how tgirl tummy tuesday is only ever thin or slightly fat girls. You can see it in the expectation of trans men to be either big and strong or thin waifish twinks, the only representation we get is conventionally attractive trans people Trans people get all the cruel gender expectations that cis people get, but doubled or tripled, and the fat people are left in the dust until we can lose enough weight to be included. I'm probably going to talk about this more because I have so much to say about it.

[pocket-deer-boy]

at a certain point, someone's bigotry towards trans people becomes some kind of science denialism where they have to pretend trans people aren't real for their idea of the world to work. like, have a gander at this infographic

Beyond having no idea who the target audience of this infographic is (this reads as a bit too toony and colorful for the more serious sex ed tone of high school biology classes but is far too textually dense and visually noisy and cluttered for younger kids, so really it just feels like it's made or adults to pass around and nod along to work that tells them exactly what they already believe) It's also full of blatant medical misinformation, and states facts in a way that feels completely angry and bitter towards anyone who believes anything else. Like, no, transphobic lion gender infographic. Men CAN lectate even without any hormonal treatments or being trans. I've seen it personally.

It's also interesting to me how it explains sexuality (among other things) as being these incredibly rigid and inflexible categories. Like oh really, asexuals can't have sex? We can't go into nuances of sexual desire, sexual attraction, sexual pleasure and social expectations to perform sex. Like if you're ace and you did sex and weren't enthusiastic about it and never tried it again i guess you're not ace. The harry potter houses model of sexuality: you are one thing, you fit into this one thing, it prescribes how you're supposed to act instead of using it to describe how you actually exist.

This rigidity also becomes obvious when it talks about intersex people as being these exceptions to the rule that don't have to be counted for how gender and sexuality works. And of course, we have to force intersex people into these binary categories instead of, you know, letting them decide for themselves? And of course it ignores any kind of intersex person with any kind of features that can't be written off as an anomaly and an aberration from the norm. Here we start doing science denialism. Here we start pretending certain people's body features aren't worth discussing for the sake of public knowledge. They're only worth bringing up as anomalies, and not as like, people.

I can't fucking get over how jarring the whole image is actually. Like, the really cheerful cartoon furry lions next to this piece of text prescribing the rigidity of existence. Yeah baby, I love being a strong cool lion boy, I love being told everything I'm not allowed to do or be for the sanctity of my gender!

yeah roar!!!

Here's a little section i wanna do more of a deep dive on

Women have two eggs?? what??? the egg-shapd things in the uterus are not the eggs!!!!! what the fuck are you talking about

This particular part stands out to me. Like, obviously the purpose of this infographic is not to tell you how bodies work, but to insist that there's a correct and an incorrect way for bodies to work, and that people outside of what it describes do not exist. It's obvious because it won't even show you what a uterus, what a vagina, or what boobs usually look like, like any decent diagram whose purpose is science education would. It's obvious because it straight up lies to you about how periods work, and tells you that having a period is somehow intrinsically tied to being a woman.

Like, no. Obviously. Trans can men experience menstruation at any point in transition, and trans women can experience other common parts of periods if they've been on hrt for long enough. Periods are not some kind of woman exclusive thing, it's not purely reliant on having a uterus or having certain hormones. It's not gender dependent. It depends on multiple features of one's body. It's a very basic fact of transition, hormones change how your biology works no matter what features you have. To imply none of this is true is denying very very basic facts about how a lot of people's bodies work, simply based on some insistence that those people aren't real and if we simply look away we can all pretend trans women aren't real. It's digging your head in the sand, it's having lived looking at the shadows on the wall your whole life, being told something new, and going right back into your cave and angrily shouting at everyone that the shadows are real, the shadows are ALL that is real, and though I may have glimpsed things that lie outside of it, those things aren't real because I personally can safely ignore facts about how the world works and go about my day.

[velvetvexations]

I think the idea of "binary privilege" is very caught up in a certain idea of privilege that is all or nothing and Adds tangible benefits as opposed to simply meaning someone doesn't face a specific form of harm. There's multiple types of privilege imo and there's some where it's like ok yeah it's a privilege not to face X but not in a way that truly confers Active benefits. Like do transmascs on average have the "privilege" of not primarily facing transmisogyny specifically? Kinda. But does that make transmascs "privileged"? Not really. Like transfemmes on average have the "privilege" of not primarily facing transandrophobia but same as vice versa, but it's like okay is it a privilege to be facing a different but similar form of oppression? It's like asking which is the privilege, hypervisibility or hyperinvisibility, but neither is actually, truly privilege. Or for a more specific example, is it a privilege to have transmisogynystic caricatures in media to know that trans women are a thing in a way that leads to knowing you're trans but also causes emotional harm, or never finding out about the concept of trans men and not being able to conceptualize of ftm transition which leads to never knowing what you are which causes emotional harm. Neither benefits the person who ends up harmed by society, but it is Technically a privilege not to face one even if you do face the other.

Then for nonbinary people and exorsexism, binary people do, often, not face certain struggles that nonbinary people often do, and should keep that in mind. Binary people have the option to be gendered correctly by m/f paperwork and the like and can more easily exist in the framework of cis minds, etc, but that doesn't make them not trans or erase other negative things they face. There's no absolutes in this. Many binary trans people will face issues that nonbinary trans people don't and vice versa. It's simply a difference to keep in mind, but it's not an oppressed/oppressor privilege dynamic like some privileges are. The no nuance view of privilege just erases positive conversations that can be had that can help strengthen the fight against transphobia of all types.

Following up on the ask that I just sent about privilege having many contexts and meanings for binary privilege discussion, I saw someone else compare it to abled vs disabled dynamics and I think in this case it's far more comparable to like, invisible vs visible disabilities where both are disabled but because it's in different ways, they face different struggles in different situations. Like one could argue (incorrectly) that it's a privilege for handicapped spaces to exist whereas accomodations for many other disabilities don't exist but like that's stupid and accomodations for that kind of physical disability arent actually treated any more seriously/face different struggles. Like someone who can't access a certain space due to disabilities doesn't matter if it's because there's no stairs or because the strobe lights would cause meltdown/seizure/etc , either way, they can't enter the building, and people's responses could range from ignoring them to taking them seriously depending on their personal bias. Some people will accommodate visible physical disabilities but not invisible ones and some will do the opposite. More often, they're shitty across the board. Having Some spaces take Some groups more seriously in Some ways Sometimes doesn't mean they're privileged, and this applies to both "sides". One group just faces one side of a double edged sword and the other faces the other side. Both are wounded.

All very good words, anon! I wish I had more to say but once again I feel I am more platforming people and learning from them wrt this.

[confessionsofareindeer]

Not to like totally rant but like let's get this out of the way, Season 3 Heartstopper Spoilers:

They kind of ruined the show a little for me with this sad ace rep., the carnival scene takes out the depth of Tori and Micheal's relationship, it makes it look like they're just dating, it cuts out their queerness and just makes them look like a messy straight couple. They barely had any screen time, which is fair, they're just Charlie's sister and the guy that's always around her, (no one even seems to know Micheal despite them having had class with him in the comics, but whatever, Solitaire erasure it is) I wasn't expecting to see all of Solitaire played out on my laptop for me, but I wanted some sort of complexity around aceness and maybe a reference to its existence. But instead, you're telling me a group of queer teenagers needed a fish analogy to understand aromanticsm? Really? In school I only had to tell the cis boys and the girls who stared at me funny what it meant, not my friend group that is majority LGBTQ. I thought this was supposed to be a dreamscape to actually show me and my friends, not-a-water-everything-down-for-the-straights-and-alloscape, that comes with every other story, this was made by a queer person who is aro/ace so why did we end up like this, why did I bother having hope?

I really respect how the storyline made room for Darcy and Elle had trans and non binary identities and that they were expanded upon in the show, I love it really and I think that it felt like things my friends would actually talk about. We have a slight reference to Darcy having an unlabeled gender but even this feels wrapped up as they come out as non binary, I wish it was just all less clean cut, less perfectly fit so that everything works out, do their's and Tara's sexualities shift to reflect changing Lesbian identity in a more inclusive world? Do they decide to be unlabled or does the idiotic queer discourse not exist for them? Can we have people who don't particularly lean one way or the other, or who reject this modern idea that we should fit into the straight designed trap of conformity for the heads to comprehend something outside their simple world of the nuclear family? I want sexualities nuances to be explained like gender's was. Micheal talks about it, so why is there not a large discussion or plot around it? Why does it end up a somewhat hollow scene?

Maybe my friends and I are weird and philosophical, but we'd spend lunch arguing about this sort of stuff, so I really wish they'd show it, I have the backing of the kids who loved Perks of Being a Wallflower and Catcher and the Rye (don't ask me about that one I haven't actually read it, on principle) that found Solitaire, and all the depressed outsider protaganists a little too relatable for our own good, that maybe Tori and Micheal shouldn't have even kissed in the book because people are only ever going to misinterpret it. So now looking at the show, I guess of course this happened. Tori and Micheals story meant something to me and so yeah, I'm going to be a melodramatic whiner on Tumblr about it.

Listen, I get the show is cringey at times, that it's for teens and their friends and hopefully their families too, it shouldn't be a savior or the end all be all of queer rep, it's silly, they go out and drink milkshakes and sleep in tents outside for birthdays and ignore for the most part the politicization of being a queer teen except for when it's needed for the plot and I so deeply respect that, it shows kids being kids and I thank the queer gods that it isn't the sanitized storytelling of Love, Simon that people have made it out to be. But tell me why we couldn't get this one thing, why the ace and aro teens couldn't get something that talks about allonormativity a topic that needs to be so deeply explained instead of this, and trust me, I love that Issac told Charlie he could go look it up, but he shouldn't have even had to do that, don't make our main character dumb when he's not, he said knew asexual, clearly being aro is the romantic equivalent. All of Issac's character is cool, but it feels almost overdone at this point, with Jame's and the subtle aphobia of his friends who really don't get how he feels, I don't know, maybe it's because I've lived it and most of the ace media I see feels in this same vein, I just expected better from a new character who didn't have an already written plot, they could have done anything with him, and now he's just the token ace.

I don't want people who think their's something wrong with them for being aspec, I like in these shows when people experiment with labels and attraction, but I also just want someone is confidently ace, or that finds out what it means to be aro and finally feels validated for not being interested in people, I want someone to push the boundries of what being aromantic means the way people actually are the ones who don't fit into the little societal boxes, which is what the show is all about, not to even start be wishful and ask for a character that's just aromantic, or just ace, or like Tori is supposed to be ace and and complexly arospec, but still has something going on with Micheal, in a queer way where the people in the relationship fine it, not societal standards. I kind of wanted the show to question more of what a romantic relationship even looks like, because, honestly, I'm sure I even know.

All the Tumblr aspecs are aware of the trenches of the stupidity of the infighting and microlabels that come with understanding and interacting in digital queer space, but I wish we could see some of that, the overwhelming forcefield that's kind of alienating but also tells you you can be anything, I want to see the screenshots of 20 different pride flags with their definitions and names from the MOGAI years on Pinterest or the images section online. We have the Am I Gay Quiz jokes, but show me someone who is too indecisive to fill them out, who get X on the kinsey scale. I want more, I want friendships like Tori and Micheal that lean into something that, yeah looks like dating to straight people, but manages to defy their heteronormative labels, like what's vaguely discussed by Micheal at the table but manages to be outweighed by it being what looks to be blatantly cut out as Charlie and Tori talking on the ferris wheel because Tori doesn't even say 'we're not a straight couple' but just 'we're not a couple', and that's so infuriating.

And you know what, maybe it's cinematic and creative and it'll all work out in the next season, maybe it'll all be thought out and there just wasn't enough time for it in the episode, maybe the glimmer in Issac's eye when Charlie says he doesn't know if they're dating is foreshadowing, but it could just be my naive aspec heart seeing what I want. To me it looks like they decided this was something the audience wouldn't get so they chose to leave it out, I want to believe so they wouldn't ruin it, but probably just to avoid the ultra complex queerness that comes with a disregard for labeling and an abolishionist mentality. Which comes to the point of me begging creators to trust that their audience isn't stupid and that if they are ignorant on this, they can spend 20 seconds looking it up like they had Charlie do (in an unbelievable scenario). They have such a big audience at this point, so can't we use it to teach people this time, things that aren't as easily accessible in information, the stuff that ends up in academic queer theory and pot smokers, the things that confuse people and use the medium to explain it.

I also feel like I can see a future of this show that I won't like that might follow this season, if my understanding is correct. I think we'll end up having some sort of QPR (queer platonic relationship, if you don't understand what this is, this next part may confuse you, basically the committed thing a lot of aspec and poly people find to be a good alternative to typical or traditional romantic relationships that have their own rules defined by the people in them). Originally, I hoped we'd see one with Tori and Micheal because to me that's what they're reminiscent of, I have a feeling we might see this with James and Issac instead, they'll develop a deeper relationship in place of romance, since James was looking for someone to be closer with and already really likes Issac, and Issac needs someone to have more devotion to him, instead of leaving a single person in something that is not parallel to a romance, which would be annoying. Because they're also clearly setting up for Sahar and Imogen to be something, if we were all paying attention, I see through the remaining friends bit. I get it, and yet, god forbid someone be on their own and happy, as we see Issac have a common aspec breakdown of seeing the trauma of heteronormative society fall onto him and have his reality slightly collapse, I want this to work out, and be good, but I'm so scared that they'll fall into a trap of trying to please the straights and the allos like they already are. Yet again we see all the characters in a show the victim of being coupled off at least symbolically, if I'm right.

All this for what, it's television after all, we have real lives, some better than others, but we waste them sitting at computers and TVs to escape just to be drawn back in, because even the fantasy is disappointing, I encourage everyone who just read my rant to think hard about all of this, give me your opinion, but remember this is severely online of a take and that maybe you should go do something not related to Tumblr that makes you happy, read a book or do a craft or something, eat a vegetable and drink water.

Edit: I take back what I said about everyone being in a relationship like every other show, because I really do love the way friendship is one of the focal points of the show and I don't want to ignore that, I'm just worried that they're going to ignore the original plots of some of the characters and there are already so few aro or ace characters in media

I saw the thing about Alice Oseman saying she was saving Tori's ace arc for next season, a little while after I wrote this, I sort of think that makes sense, even if it's still disappointing and if you hadn't seen that you'd be thinking the same thing as me, remember this was an incredibly reactionary rant that I wrote an hour after watching the show, anyway, I think a lot of my points still stand, I think there's a lot they could still do, and a lot they haven't, I'm annoyed, but it's not the end of the world

[raybeanschildrenslit]

If You’re a Kid Like Gavin: The True Story of a Young Trans Activist - Nonfiction

If You’re a Kid Like Gavin: The True Story of a Young Trans Activist by Gavin Grimm, Kyle Lukoff, J Yang (Illustrator) - (Nonfiction) Published 2022 by Katherine Tegen Books

This is one of those books that once I had finished reading and set it to the side, I felt like crying. This is one of those books that I wish I had when I was younger to help me feel seen for who I was and am, and to have it be valid and normal and wonderful.

Gavin Grimm is a trans activist who started his journey in activism in high school in 2015, the same year I graduated high school. He released this children’s non-fiction book about seven years later, sharing his experiences and normalizing trans identities for young- and hopefully all age- readers. While Gavin doesn’t share everything with us about his journey in his trans identity, he doesn’t have to, instead he reaches out to the reader in ways that make this aspect of life feel more natural and normal. For many, this can be a heartwarming moment. A place where we are recognized and acknowledged through someone like us generously sharing a fraction of their story. He walks us through coming into his identity, the issues that arose as he more so entered the world, and the actions he took to rally for rights and change. His story is far from over. In the snippet of it he is sharing, he says in his author’s note, “I hope people come away recognizing that we all have important choices to make in our lives- being kind, leading with love, standing up for yourself and others- whereas living our lives as the people we are is not a choice; it's a right. I hope that this story shows kids their own power and what they can do” (Grimm, 2022).

As someone who identifies with transness- identifying as Non-Binary Trans-Masc Queer- it is important that all versions of transness are expressed as they can be and remind others regardless of where they are in their journey that they are real, valid, true. Like I said, I could have used this when I was younger. I applaud Gavin for finding himself so strongly and standing up for what he knows is right. I am his age and still don’t really know who I am but if I had an ounce of his clarity when I was younger I could have saved some heartache, toxicity, and a few tears. I won't go into it but everyone, regardless of queerness or transness, is important and valuable and amazing and stunning. As someone who is queer and wants to push for social justice, diversity, recognition, safety, human rights… I want to be the librarian that shuts down bigotry and ignorance while creating a safe and free environment for the patrons- especially the YA individuals I want to work with, feel seen and heard and safe. I understand that I am repeating myself but I am passionate about this and that’s what happens with me. I think there are a lot of creative ways we can express ourselves in a smaller environment scale; making name tags with preferred/ correct names and pronouns, making zines of our identities, and experiences, hosting a queer club safe space for media discussion and community work. On a slightly larger scale, I can see myself reaching out and collecting resources for people to use and provide opportunities for parades, peaceful protests, celebrations, safe spaces and community gatherings beyond the library, and more.

-Ray 02/11/2024

Grimm, G., Lukoff, K., & Yang, J. (2022). If you’re A Kid Like Gavin. Katherine Tegen Books, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers.

[fischerfrey]

a psa regarding the upcoming release of hogwarts legacy:

disclaimer: the following is not targeted towards anyone in particular

this has been said a billion times and i’m getting kind of tired of saying this: no, buying and playing the game does not immediately make you a bad person or a transphobe.

however, if you do buy the game, you’re not being an ally to trans people. being an ally requires giving up things you don’t want to give up. it’s recognizing that your entertainment is not more important than the dignity and rights of trans people and the dignity and rights of jewish people, since the story seems to lean heavily on antisemitic tropes.

i really don’t want to hear your justification for why you buy or play the game, that’s your business. but if people don’t feel comfortable engaging with your content anymore, or have an opinion to share that makes you uncomfortable, then i want you all to know, from the bottom of my heart, it’s not trans or jewish people tearing this community apart.

i say this all as a non-binary person who is obviously still creating content for hphl era (and the hp universe at large, but that’s a whole other conversation). i got into hphl not really knowing any of the game’s context. i should’ve looked into the background more, but i saw people creating ocs for late 1800s and i ate that shit up.

i chose to be a part of this fandom. i chose not to drop harry potter once i realised what kind of person jkr is. that was my choice and everyone is entitled to make their own. but choosing to support this particular game, even after everything that has come out about it, is going to affect this small corner of the hp fandom that we have all created together. there’s nothing to be done about that.

however you feel about this issue, i don’t condone hate or harassment. there are discussions to be had here but i really, really hope we can have them in a respectful manner.

i love my hphl era ocs, and i’m not going anywhere. i might start using a different tag for my legacy-adjacent content though, since my story lines really have nothing to do with the game anyway.

i wanted to play this game so badly. i wanted it to be good. but i’m not buying it, even if the story line ends up not being as antisemitic as the trailers made it out to be (doubtful, but hey, it could happen). i strongly encourage engaging in some good, old-fashioned piracy if you want to try it out.

please watch this video, or at least the part about legacy itself (starts at around 2 hours and 13 minutes), if you have the time:

“i know many people say and feel like ‘well capitalism makes us all complicit in one way or another. why bother fighting this fight? why not buy this game if it makes me happy? rowling’s gonna rowling anyway, regardless of what i do.’ and it creates a cognitive dissonance in people. they realise jk rowling is causing harm but they don’t wish to feel like a bad person if they want to play the game. they want to be made to feel okay.”

“but what discourse like this does is try to comfort those who want to buy the game, to make them feel like they’re still good people if they support a system that causes harm, because they can’t fight it anyways. yet it ignores that you do actually have power. it tries to make you forget that you don’t have an obligation to buy the game. you don’t have to give it your attention.”

to reiterate: i don’t think everyone who buys and/or plays this game is a terrible person, but i do disagree with those saying that buying the game is a non-issue.

finally, there are so many good games out there that don’t support a terf or subscribe to antisemitic tropes!!! i know you all fellow gamers have loads of unplayed games on your devices or libraries just waiting for you to play them. maybe try those out instead. 

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

I know that the word "biology" has gotten a bad rep in trans spaces for being used as a shitty excuse for bad thinking and bad policy... But like... 'Biology' is not a bad or dirty word.

Just like real world biology is a scientific study that would actually back up sex and gender as not being binary or fixed... People in fandom spaces just using the word biology in reference to how nature functions unadulterated by conscious choices, aren't inherently coming up with bad -or exclusionary- explanations or ideas because they want to explore how something naturally evolved or could evolve in the absence of interference, theoretically, even in universes where there are forces at work other than 'natural' evolution.

Sometimes discussing biology in fandom spaces is fun and kind of adjacent to the whole point of what you are doing, aka "Vulcan biology, the biology of Vulcans..." And hand waving things away as not needing to be explained or specified is kind of missing the point no matter how easy it is to do...

Maybe sometimes when you are writing smut, as a random non-specific example, you want a solid theory on what kinds of pleasure a character is capable of experiencing that is laid out in a way that doesn't ignore or alienate cannon.

So maybe picking apart how a character race ended up the way they are is weird and needless nitpicking to -you- that should be hand waved away or isn't worth bringing up and exploring, but to someone who is -for example- going to use it for plot reasons or is going to be horny about it, the nuance of how things got to be how they are is kind of important.

To put it very bluntly, for anyone still missing the point, the reason why a person might want a very specific explanation of these things is that maybe it's hard to write about having a character -as a lover or otherwise- when how they function or experience pleasure on a fundamental level isn't written in the original text in a way that makes sense. Even if you are going to come up with your own answers, you might still really enjoy working it into something that doesn't argue with the accepted cannon, because that's how you get your kicks, or because that raises the likelihood that other fans can also enjoy a story without being irked by it being "incorrect" constantly.

Maybe -you- don't feel the need to explore it because you aren't horny on main about it.

[multigenderswag]

nah this is probably all in my head but is genderfluid seen as like, being outside the bounds of...like...all categories of being trans/nonbinary/multigender? Like, they aren't seen as trans because "they're cis sometimes", not nonbinary because "they're binary sometimes", not multigender because "one gender at a time" (which is wrong, at least for me, I'm not one at a time).

I mean multigender people are the most normal for sure, I've barely seen anyone think fluids don't count lol. But I have seen a handful of static multigender people asking if we count. Not being exclusionist but still sort of like, being confused about us ig?

I don't mean to downplay how static multigender people feel if that's how this is coming off btw- for example, I've seen like people basically erase the option of a character being pangender/bigender/trigender, what have you for them being genderfluid. Even when they fit one of the former much much more, because I guess someone switching genders is more acceptable to people than being multiple at once which sucks and is stupid. So, I'm not trying to be like "wahh why does nobody acknowledge us"

But, ig what I'm saying is, I don't feel like genderfluid people are accepted as anywhere under the trans umbrella exactly, like we're just kind of a gimmick to people that accept us over multigenders and it's annoying. I'm probably not wording it correctly but like, it's only acknowledged when convenient enough to ignore static multigenders, but otherwise genderfluid isn't real and not worth the attention in a legitimate discussion. idk this rant was kind of all over the place I am quite sorry about that lol.

I think that's partly because the genderfluid experience is so diverse- some consider themselves trans and some don't, some consider themselves nonbinary and some don't, some consider themselves multigender and some don't- that it's impossible to put all of genderfluidity under one gender label. But it's definitely not okay and probably very frustrating to be told that you don't "count" as the label you feel connected to.

In my experience, part of me might sometimes feel uncomfortable including genderfluid folks as multigender because of how many times my bigender identity has been invalidated by people telling me I'm fluid. But I can take a deep breath and recognize that genderfluid people are absolutely multigender, if they consider themselves that way, and the multigender community is better with them here! Any part of me that feels differently is just lashing out due to my own bad experiences, but that's not the fault of genderfluid people and my pain doesn't give me the right to be an exclusionist.

Anon, I hope you and any other genderlfluid folks reading this find acceptance in a community they want to be a part of.

[carrionsong]

Transmisogyny is very real, very targeted, and very awful, but I think where ppl are coming from in criticism of the TMA/TME labels, is that it may seem like inventing and reinforcing a different kind of binary in a way when the human experience is very complex. And re: the outing part, I think people sometimes forget even amongst our peers in the queer community, no one is actually entitled to information about someone else's transition, or assigned sex at birth

i dont personally see it as a cut and dry binary when i mentioned that the terms arent perfect bc obviously they dont always include intersex trans peoples experiences And racialized views towards womanhood/what is seen masculine or "man like". its not meant to really be one when these experiences can overlap so often, plus it lumps in cis men / trans men / cis women / afab nonbinary people in one so thats a Hell of a "binary". our experiences Are complex and we dont all live in the us/western world, so we can all have different experiences and still have it be a trans and queer experience that trans and intersex people share! and thats a really good point too! intersex women Do have shared experiences with transfems as people who are degendered and seen as lesser bc of cagab. but we can share experiences and still be transphobic or transmisogynistic to other people. the problem lies with how pervasive and universal transmisogyny is, and how it affects transfems everywhere regardless of where they live. its inescapable!

and i feel like saying that it outs us queer people when the question the terms are asking is, do you experience transmisogyny... is a bit disingenuous. when we are discussing transmisogyny, our cagab and axes of oppression does very much matter. its not a top-down, "im more oppressed than You" kind of thing, but we perpetuate it! even if we share experiences, that doesnt mean we cant still put each other down and be transmisogynistic towards transfems, thats the whole point!

simply put, its language to describe often unique lived experiences that a transfem person has in a patriarchal society where they are subjugated, punished, and killed for being "failed men", and degendered and denied trans womanhood as a result. how transfems are expected to be meek doormats and shoulder our collective societal abuse lest we see them as inherent abusers and rapists bc of their cagab, and how every single thing a transfem does is under scrutiny bc of them being """male-adjacent""" (made a face typing that shit out but its how its seen.) and having to shrink themselves down to a shell of themselves for the Chance to be treated as a person.

its obviously not a cure all term to neatly describe every single experience we as queer people have in a nice little box, but its a Start! we cannot ignore how insanely transmisogynistic society and our online spaces are, so having language to talk about it is important as we expand our understanding of it and critique it along the way! bloomfilters on twitter describes this much better than i can with this thread, i follow her and their transfeminine oppression analyses are super well written and easy to understand and shes super smart and cool :]

[stillarobyn]

I understand the intention behind this post and I don't disagree with it. I don't.

If you're writing a period piece or something with a certain dark tone, then yes, you absolutely want to keep to that, give your gruff sailor a mumbled line about not being like most other men, or your scattered workaholic scientist can say she never felt like she was missing out on anything by not having a partner while they save the world.

But do not limit the reach of fanfiction by expecting it to be held to the same standards.

Because we need both. Because the target audience for a lot of works that employ this are young, they're disconnected from community, and they're lost. They think they're broken or they don't fit or they are made wrong.

I, a millennial, didn't know about bisexuality until I read about it in fanfic somewhere around 2003 (I was 13). I didn't know any out gay or queer people growing up. It was still scandalous on tv, and my parents didn't have any problem with it, they just didn't talk about it. I can't imagine how isolating it would have felt if my parents prevented me from watching anything with gay characters or spoke negatively about them.

My first discovery of nonbinary identity was in a bandom fic I read in 2010 (I was 20, for those playing the home game). It was maybe two years after that that I began to talk with nonbinary/genderqueer/genderfluid people online. I knew a couple of binary trans people in college, and one in high school, but this was my first time meeting people who weren't a binary gender. In 2012! It took another two years for me, at this point a full-ass adult, to start describing myself that way.

All of this oversharing to say...my understanding of queer identity was not hand-held by anyone in my life, but boy I learned to accept these foreign ideas I saw in myself because I had a safe fictional environment to explore these concepts and terms.

I think it was 2014-2016 when fanfic spaces had a boom of "everyone is trans" AUs and headcanons, and they were often rose-tinted and a bit twee, but that's the point of them. I saw identities I had to look up, and when I asked in follow-up "okay, but what does a person who feels like that look/act like?" it was all crickets, except in fiction, and specifically fanfic.

"But the world is different now, not knowing is no excuse" NOPE. not with anti-lgbtqia legislation passing in the US, or in other hostile countries around the world (I'm from the US, my argument is US-centric based on my experience and knowledge, but by no means exclusionary of people in other countries), or even family situations or rural upbringing or any other circumstance that isolated young queer folk from other queer folk.

A popular live-service video game introduced a nonbinary character and I saw twitch chats full of people who were just confused and uneducated. Ignoring those who were hostile was easy, but the uninformed, especially the non-English-speakers and people who didn't come from Western cultures, were largely open to learning something they never had framework for. Made all the more frustrating in a game environment where the characters didn't make a habit of having these discussions on screen, but that's a different rant.

I don't know if OP intended this in reference to original media, or toward fic, but I saw a lot of established characters in the reblogs so I just want to address that. I'm a characterization first fic reader, so I get it. "Everyone is trans" fics aren't for me, but there's a space needed for them if someone needs to see Captain Kirk and Spock debating the application of terminology of human gender and sexuality in interplanetary cultural settings...now actually I kind of want that fic so I played myself.

Dragon Age Veilguard came under attack for daring to openly and forwardly use the term "nonbinary" in its fantasy world, as though something about the word is inherently incompatible with the fantasy genre? But the game was pretty clear in its goal to create a safe gaming space for marginalized folks when so often their experiences are erased, ignored, tokenized, or stereotyped. The narrative, therefore, had to be hostile to the unaccepting, educational for the ignorant, and validating to the vulnerable. Getting to play in a world where people are referred to as nonbinary (just like me) and where people use they/them pronouns (just like me) and where no one ridicules or attacks them specifically for this? It felt comfortable and safe and the world was ending in the game, but I felt a personal empowerment in my immersion.

More complex and nuanced discussions by characters about their queer identity add to the picture. It shouldn't be in every work because every author has their own angle and their own philosophy about it, but they have just as much a right to a seat at the table. You can have your fics where Tony Stark's sexuality is a smirk and a wink, and you can have your fics where he explains that he used to call himself bisexual but the world is bigger and weirder so he considers himself omnisexual now. And if you don't like that, scroll past it. The author didn't write it for you, but someone else needs to hear that.

Maybe this is just a personal vent that escaped containment, but I feel the need to remind some folks that some people need the LGBT center brochure version because they didn't get one in the mail. It's a tough time for everyone in this community, no need to make it tougher.

he would not fucking say that but it’s he would not fucking talk about his queer identity like he was reading out of a college campus lgbt center brochure

[shig-a-shig-ah]

I'm just wondering, if gender is fake, why to invent pronouns and identities? Aren't they are fake as well?

Short answer: because it's fun!

Longer answer under the cut because I am long-winded af about sociology in general and about gender in particular. I'm going to explain this assuming literally no background knowledge whatsoever, so please know if I over-explain anything, I'm not trying to be patronizing. Just accessible to anyone, regardless of how much exposure they've had to this stuff.

First off, we need to unpack what it means to say that gender is 'fake.' This doesn't mean that gender straight up doesn't exist--it simply means that gender is, at its essence, a made-up category. (Or, in fancy social science lingo, it's a social construct.) Essentially, this means that gender is a category that we as a society have agreed is meaningful, but that isn't really rooted in any biological/physical reality.

But sex is biological! you might say. We're a sexually dimorphic species! Males and females! Penises and vaginas! Etc., etc.! (I am speaking of the proverbial 'you' here, not necessarily of you in particular, anon.) There's this common sense narrative that we're all taught from a very young age that people can be divided into males and females, which is synonymous with men and women, and that there's something natural about these divisions.

The truth, though, is more complicated, and for a couple reasons. The first is that biological/physiological sex is not actually a neat binary. There's a lot of variation, and no matter what defining characteristic you want to use to determine sex--hormones, chromosomes, genitals--you're always going to get people who don't fit neatly into one box or another. (Intersex people exist, for starters.)

Now, some people challenge the utility of biological sex as a concept too--and here I literally just mean the categorization of the body into male, female, or intersex--but I personally don't take much issue with it. But it is important to know that sex isn’t the same as gender. If we think of sex as purely based on physiological characteristics, we can think of gender as all of the social meanings and expectations that have come to be associated physical sex. Men are aggressive, stoic, etc. Women are emotional, soft, whatever. But the thing is, none of these traits are exclusively innate to men/males or women/females--differences in behavior that emerge between men and women occur because they’re taught. We all start learning from a very young age that boys do this, and girls do that, and it becomes internalized enough that it starts to look natural, but it really isn't; it’s just become second-nature to us. And we know this is true partly because in terms of behavior/disposition, there’s as much variation among men and among women themselves as there is between men and women as distinct groups. Further, the supposed differences between men and women aren’t consistent across time and place--the norms for what men like or how they behave have differed depending on the historical period, and the traits that distinguish men and women vary from culture to culture. This wouldn’t happen if there was something biological about gendered behavior.

So, gender, then, is really rooted in identity (how we think and feel about ourselves) and performance (how we act/comport ourselves throughout the world). And these things are absolutely shaped by social forces (because we’re taught to act and think of ourselves in certain ways), but if you accept that gender is largely a construct imposed from without and then internalized, this opens up the possibility of other kinds of gender identity and gender performances.

Now, yeah, you could argue instead that we should simply do away with gender entirely. Let people look and act however they want without creating new labels or pronouns or any of that. And honestly, I think that's my ideal world. But the world that we actually live in genders everything. It's this overarching structure that shapes out interactions, permeates our institutions, and has a profound impact on our experiences. So many of our norms and our models for what life looks like are highly gendered, and as such, it's not really possible to move through our society without having some kind of relationship to masculinity and femininity, to manhood and womanhood, even if that relationship is rooted in a rejection of the constraints of those categories or (in my own personal case) a sort of failure or inability to adhere to said categories.

Creating room for 'new' gender identities creates language to articulate those relationships. (And, I do want to push back against the idea of these being new inventions a bit, because plenty of other cultures have had language and space for trans/nonbinary identities, and the rigid systems we have now are, in part, a consequence of colonialism, but that's a whole other thing.) And this desire to have language to express ourselves is just... a very human thing. We want to be able to describe our experiences and connect with people who share them. New identities and pronouns are way to do that. (Also want to note here that pronouns are not synonymous with gender identity; I know cis people who prefer they/them pronouns, and nonbinary people who were assigned female at birth who are fine with she/her pronouns. They're just one way to reflect gender identity.)

Which brings me back to: it's fun! There's a type of pleasure (in a nonsexual way) to be had in identifying a gender performance that feels right. And for some people this is along binary lines, but for others it isn't.

Speaking for myself, I didn't even come out as nonbinary until was 30, but I had a very ambivalent relationship towards womanhood up until then. And not just in a way where I didn't love the stereotypes associated with it (although, that too), but in a way where I was lowkey... bad at it. I started getting mistaken for a lesbian in the sixth grade and that's been a constant theme my whole life. And like, I am bisexual, but it took a very long time for it to click that people were really making that assumption based on my gender performance and not any real hints about my sexuality. I just wasn't quite feminine enough to pass, or something, and this was true even at times in my life where I looked more feminine.

And looking back on my life, I can literally pinpoint moments where I sort of... 'bought in' to elements of male socialization--to stoicism and to objectifying women and to many other things that my woman friends didn't that very much led to that more ambiguous gender performance. And none of this is to say that woman have to perform a particular type of femininity to be women--I certainly believe people can be gender nonconforming without being any kind of trans or nonbinary--but for me personally the result was that the 'woman' box just never felt right and I always felt sort of... confused about gender. About why it mattered or why I was supposed to pick or identify with something. Even as a bisexual person, my attitude is less 'women are hot! men are hot!' and more 'attractive people are attractive, beyond that who cares?' And the language of being nonbinary just really spoke to those feelings in a very real way, even if there's nothing innate about it. It gives me a way to express my experience as a particular type of gendered being in a highly gendered society that wouldn’t be covered by just saying ‘oh I’m a slightly masculine woman’ or something, because it’s a lot more complicated than that. 

[cipheramnesia]

Just in case you missed it: some person made a blog called @transmisogyny-explained and started a massive blocklist of "transandrophobia truthers" as if we were conspiracy theorists, and refuses to add trans women who believe in transandrophobia because "this is about tme people using it as an excuse for transmisogyny".

We're ALL being added. Vent blogs, people who have only liked posts, people who have made posts, they're SWEEPING every post and asking followers for names and it's like... So laughably organized by people who have transmasculine people. Lmfao.

I saw, it makes me feel exhausted and sad and frustrated on many levels. My angst at present is the way it's always parsed as trans masc vs trans femme, in the sense of gender only fitting on a line between female and male. When we talk about gender in those terms, without including the wider complexity of gender beyond the binary, we're also contributing to an ongoing problem where nonbinary is left out of every discussion, treated as a third gender, and generally ignored or otherwise excluded.

It's also frustrating being aware of specific cases of violence or bigotry directed at trans masc people, cases I'm aware of because they were really high profile! and I have to see discourse like there's no such thing as transandrophia.

It's discouraging that it's so much coming from this place of stupid puritanical exclusionist call outs, all this purposefully inflammatory language just to try and tear down some corner of the trans community.

And I have this dumb post about trans your gender and you'll calm down and I love it because so many people of all gender experiences are sharing the same kind of story. This silly and beautiful moment of "I thought this gender stuff was ridiculous and then I realized I just wanted different gender stuff." Y'know were all distinct but in so many ways we are all SO MUCH ALIKE. We have got so many shared experiences that take us on different journeys why are people spending time to make a list of "The Unclean Excommunicated Ones Who Have Spoken of The Devil's Foul Transandrophia."

I'm just. Why are people working so hard not to see the good? When so much more good is right here? I got so many near and far trans folx making my Tumblr better, it's exhausting when I watch people try to make it worse.

[artyphex]

What even is bisexual lesbian and why did twitter got worked up about it??

Bisexual lesbian is, from my understanding, kind of a label that is different for everyone. For some people it means lesbian who also dates non-binary people, for some it means someone who prefers women so strongly they identify greatly with the word lesbian but have had very few instances of being attracted towards other genders. For some they identify with one label in one way and the other in another way (for example: Lesbian as a gender/experience label, bisexual as a sexuality. Vice versa. It's whatever)

Twitter got up in arms about it because of three reasons (that I saw the most often)

It's transphobic

Lesbians can't like men/non-women

It is biphobic/lesbiphobic

Number 1 is referring to some people using bisexual-lesbian to mean they were a lesbian attracted to trans women AS WELL AS cis women. This is obviously transphobic as you're implying that trans women are somehow not "real women" and attraction to them deserves an entire label of its own. So that's shitty. But it's worth noting there is no proof this is where the label originated and I find it kind of hard to swallow an argument that boils down to "Some people who use this label SUCK so, therefore, this label SUCKS" when that's true for literally every queer identity that ever exists. Queer people are people, sometimes people suck. There is no queer label that proves "shitty person" or "good person." We've had that discussion before and it's Bad

Number 2 is kind of. Incredibly online. Very obvious that these people have not researched any of their own history and would probably tell a bisexual woman she can't use terms like "butch, fem, dyke" etc. Historically, lesbian just meant "woman attracted to other women." That's it. It didn't have to be exclusively women, it was just ANY attraction to women. This makes this argument feel weirdly ignorant and would probably make a 70-year-old queer person look at you like you were insane

And finally number 3. Which reeks of virtue signaling. Because you will never really get anyone to explain to you how it's these things. The most common sort of explanation you get is "clearly this person is uncomfortable identifying with one over the other because of internalized biphobia and lesbiphobia, so they just use both without having to pick" and I just. I don't like it. I don't like telling people what they're feeling. If someone has picked a label, I don't understand how you could feel so entitled to this stranger's psyche to decide they're doing it for the wrong reasons. You don't KNOW them. It is never your business how someone else chooses to identify

Number 3 also often hand in hand with "it harms real lesbians/real bisexuals" and by GOD does that infuriate me. "Real lesbians" is the most terfy thing I've ever seen in my life and I saw people on twitter who claimed to hate terfs use it without any self-awareness whatsoever. And "harms" them? How? HOW are they harming them? Because I promise you, some twitter girl identifying as a bisexual-lesbian is NOT ever going to do anywhere near the same amount of harm as the republican lawmakers who have made it their life's MISSION to take every strand of human rights we've been given away from us.

And if you're thinking that the existence of bisexual-lesbians was going to make some frat dude utterly convinced that he can cure lesbians with his penis feel like he suddenly has a chance. Newsflash. That is not the bisexual-lesbians fault. That dude does not see women has capable of making choices that could possibly exclude him. That is ENTIRELY his problem. You're looking at someone doing something heinous and instead of punishing him, you're looking at some completely random individual and going "See what you've done? You enabler"

Look, bisexual, lesbian, they're both beautiful words that deserve to be used by whoever wants to use them. The person using these labels probably fought for YEARS to become comfortable with them enough to associate them with themselves. I have not met a single queer person who did not fight that fight, you do not, under any circumstances, have the right to take that from them. Lesbian is a gorgeous word that means something different to everyone, bisexual is just as gorgeous and is just as personal. You do not have the right to take them away just because you don't understand its personal meaning to someone else

TLDR; Being queer is a deeply personal experience and queer labels are beautiful things. You have no right to tell anyone they can't use a label they want. Queer exclusion is always bad

[eulangelo]

callout for @genderfluidlucifer

google docs

tw for transmisogyny + TERFs + emotional manipulation

Transmisogyny

Lucifer is a huge transmisogynist who will complain 24/7 about how TERFs hurt the ace community, but the moment @randomclustermissile , a trans girl (who is not an exclusionist at all) tries to point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles (in the most vague and general way possible, without pointing fingers nor calling anyone names) Lucifer will immediatly jump to block her and so they did with me (another inclusionist) and i have to suppose to everyone else who agreed with that post, even arriving to vagueing about us in private group chats to suggest that we were “sympathizing with exclusionists”. all because we dared point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles. lucifer is TME but apparently they think they’re the authority on TERFs and their talking points but actual trans women are not, according to them, since this is the stuff that they would go and spew to other people. (screenshots from @enbyoctoling​)

here’s more examples of Lucifer (again, a transmasc person) going deep in detail about how according to them, TERFs/SWERFs hate aro/ace people and are an active threat to us

1. link

[Image ID: Three screenshots of a post by Genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot is of a paragraph that reads, "Hey. So I can actually answer this. Anon your commentary about how you thought terfs would approve of sex repulsed aces is sort of it. Except...not. Basically terfs hate ace people for not wanting sex in the approved by terfs way. Terfs are actually extremely interested in [forcing] amatonormativity onto everyone. Because for as sex negative as terfs are...they don't want to actually acknowledge or change the fact that amatonormativity is at the root cause of rape culture and misogyny."

The second screenshot is a zoomed in section of the post that reads, "So yeah no I have NO idea where exclus allies are getting this idea from that terfs would even remotely care about the sexual rights of ace people. Terfs generally hate any sexualities in the LGBTQ+ acronym that aren't LGB because they can't force a gender binary onto those sexualities. At least, not as easily. That's why it's actually a massive sign of someone who doesn't call themselves a terf being a crypto terf if they use the term LGB in a positive manner. Along with the term SGA, as it is deliberately exclusive of nonbinary and not inherently SGA centric queer-aligned sexualities. /END ID]

link to the full post, these are just excerpts but the whole thing is just a very long rant about how TERFs hate ace people and so on (i think it’s worth noticing that although the actual post is kinda long, trans women are never once brought op in a conversation about TERFs issues and the only time transmisogyny is mentioned is not relevant to the conversation)

2. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is nothorses. It reads, "Because apparently I have to say it: Testosterone is not a 'violent' hormone. It doesn't make you 'more aggressive' or a worse person, it doesn't make you 'dangerous,' or 'toxic.' Transmascs do not need to be 'warned of the dangers of T.' We do not need to spend our transitions terrified that we're going to become a danger to those around us - that HRT is going to turn us into a monster.

Everyone experiences mood swings during hormonal shifts (pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, estrogen HRT, etc.) and while you might have grumpy moments or feel anger/frustration that you need to learn to handle differently, that doesn't make you a bad person.

Testosterone can change the way you access/process emotions somewhat, but if you're already thoughtful about how you handle your feelings and treat others, you're going to be fine. It's normal to lash out on occasion, by accident, then apologize and work to do better. It doesn't make you a bad person. Everyone on HRT is prone to this, and everyone experiencing hormonal changes is prone to this.

Getting HRT should be positive and affirming; you should not have to spend your entire transition terrified of becoming a monster."

The post then has a reblog by captainlordauditor that reads, "The big danger of T is that needle ouchy." /END ID]

here’s them reblogging from known transmisogynist user @nothorses (once again, the irony that a post about how testosterone is seen as the "aggressive hormone" does not mention transfem at all which are literally the main victims of this rethoric in the first place)

3. link (1), link (2)

[Image ID: Two screenshots of posts by genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot reads, "Queer exclus: We're not repackaging terf rhetoric! Saying that is transmisogynistic! Also queer exclus: Remove the plus from LGBT!" and has tags that say, "I will pay these people to grow some god damn self awareness. Imagine being this dense. Queer discourse." The post has 15 notes.

The second screenshot reads, "Honestly it is so stupid and frustrating to see ace exclus continue to deny that the ace discourse was started by terfs. Proof was given countless times. And a big name terf like galesofnovember even admitted to starting it. Those of you who demand proof but ignore all of this never wanted proof to begin with." and is tagged with, "ace discourse. The post has 38 notes. /END ID]

heres another two post of theirs conflating TERFs with ace exclusionism

4. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblogged post by furbearingbrick. The original poster is boxlizard, Lucifer's old account. The original post reads, "By the way for people still in denial about it, here's galesofnovember, a terf, admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement. She's taking credit for it. Normally if the victims of this behavior weren't ace/aro or other queer identities y'all be ready to rightfully lynch her. But since it's us, y'all just still wanna stamp your feet and go, 'Nuh uh!' instead of acknowledging facts." The part that says, "admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement" is a link to a galesofnovember post.

There is then a reblogged addition from furbearing brick that reads, "archived versions of the receipts" and has two links to the webarchive. The tags read, "Bringing this back since it's apparently still relevant. Terfism mention. Aphobia mention. Queerphobia mention. Blocklist." and has 1,455 notes. /END ID]

this is their post that ive already talked about but basically they found a 52 notes post made by a TERF in 2012 and this one person said "i dont know why i dont get to be the princess of the anti-ace-brigade" and apparently they are convinced that this means TERFs started the ace exclusionism movement and that this is one of their goals. which is insane when TERFs in real life only care about making life miserable for transfem people first and foremost.

5.link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is yu-gay-fudo. It reads, “Just in case you happen to be unaware, some of the “radfem lite” they post to warm you up to their rhetoric, just off the top of my head:

- Ace/aro exclusionism

- Bi exclusionism or claims that bi people are “less queer” bc of “straight passive privilege”

- Saying you have to be dysphoric to identify as transInvalidating nonbinary people

- Calling queer a slur regardless of context, saying people can’t identify as queer, and saying that it can’t be reclaimed

- “Mogai hell”, “kweer”, or otherwise mocking less common labels and claiming they are “just cishets who want to feel special”

- Excluding sex workers from feminist discussions or claiming that sex work is inherently evil

- Basically anyone who thinks they can determine what other people identify as”. The tags read, "queerphobia tw. twerfs tw. no id." and has 70,727 notes. It was reblogged on March 22nd, 2021 /END ID]

another example of conflating radfems to things that, while wrong, have little to nothing to do with them because being a radfem, again, is something very specific that has all to do with transfem oppression.

Emotional manipulation

Lucifer has done nothing but block, break boundaries, spread lies and vague about people, some of which were even mutuals with them knowing they would see the posts. when confronted about it Lucifer's only answer was "just say you hate me and block me" but they actually ended up blocking everyone first, making it impossible for anyone to set some boundaries with them or even just to calmly confront them about anything.

[proof: Io(popncourse) and Lucifer had a disagreement in a shared discord server, which prompted Lucifer to vague Io in a vent post. Io confronted them, as being vagued is one of buns triggers, to which Lucifer initially agreed to delete the vent post, but then proceeded to victimize themself and immediatly blocked Io. later on, Jude(malewifedeckard) was confronted by Lucifer, then after Jude told them “I’m worried that you’ll vague me just like you did with Io” they proceeded to block Jude and vagued about him too. when Io made a post (which was not a callout, it was just bun setting buns boundaries) explaining what Lucifer did, Lucifer immediatly jumped to victimize themself, acting like they were being called out and straight-up lying, even going so far as to say that no one tried to hear them out, which is a blatant lie if you consider the aforementioned Io and Jude’s attempts at doing so, with Lucifer immediatly blocking and cutting ties with the both of them. ] 

(screenshots taken by @popncourse and @malewifedeckard)

as seen in the proof above Lucifer’s behaviour is not ok because they don’t accept any kind of confrontation and immediatly jump to blocking, and after blocking, they'd immediatly go and vague about the people who confronted them pacificly, spreading more lies and painting themself as the victim and even arriving to say “no one hears me out at all” which is simply not something you can say when you block people who are trying to hear you out in the first place.

this is by no means an invitation to go and harass them, send them hate or anything like that. i absolutely don’t want anything even remotely hateful or negative to be sent their way after this post. 

this post was only made because:

1. as an ace person who fully supports the inclusion of aspec identities in the lgbt+ community i don’t want to support an enviroment that costantly downplays transmisogynistic oppression in order to be taken seriously. there are hundreds of ways to make aspec activism without acting like we(as in TME aspecs)are the victims of a system that seeks for the annihilation of transfemenine people in real life everyday. i especially don’t want to support TME individuals who act transfem-friendly but then block any transfem who tries to speak on transmisogyny without a second thought.

2. Lucifer’s behaviour has hurt two friends of mine and i don’t want to associate with someone who actively breaks people’s boundaries without taking accountability when messing up.

3. i cannot associate with someone who spreads lies about me accusing me of sympathizing with exclusionists all while having me blocked so that i can’t see it nor defend me. they complain about people not hearing them out but they’re the very first person who does not try to hear people out, and instead jumps to spread baseless rumors. this is not someone i can nor want to associate with. 

(image descriptions provided by @malewifedeckard)

[posi-pan]

So I just saw a post that was basically saying, “I don’t care if you use the pan label but you need to understand that bi has always been inclusive of everyone” and, idk, correct me if I’m wrong (because I really don’t actually know for sure), but isn’t that kinda… not true? Like, yeah, nowadays most bi folks feel that way and consider bi to include everyone and anyone, but isn’t there a fair bit of transphobia and exclusionism in bi history? Which is why other micro labels were being created in the first place? I know (or I think, anyway?) labels like pan were also created because some felt bi was too limiting, but I always thought it’s because bi was actually limiting back in the day?

I’m fully aware that I could be wrong and that’s just a misconception I need to shake. But the way this post was worded just kinda rubbed me the wrong way because it felt very condescending, and I don’t know if I should actually trust what it’s saying because, again, as far as I understand, there was a time when the bi label didn’t include everyone. That’s not to say people who used it didn’t feel that way personally, but as a label, that’s not what it was initially meant to mean. Like… idk, am I just completely wrong with that, or is this just another instance of people ignoring history to prove this point that “bi has always meant this” and, more subtly and quietly, “therefore pan is invalid” ??

(Sorry if this is a recycled or obvious question, but I don’t trust much of the sources on google either tbh lol and I usually find the descriptions of histories too confusing on sites like Wikipedia. But I do trust your answers and sources, and I know I can kinda count on you to explain everything, straight up, in a way that I can actually understand.)

I don’t like saying pansexual (and other mspec labels) were “created” because of bisexual not being inclusive or transphobia in bi spaces. It’s much more accurate to say pansexual gained prominence as one of the ways people responded to transphobia and the growing awareness of nonbinary identities (shifting the bi narrative was another way people did this, because yes, there was a time when bi was generally defined and discussed in bi spaces in binary ways).

Pansexual (and other mspec labels) existed before that, though. That’s why I specifically say gained popularity or ground or prominence, instead of created. The further back you look, the more they’re kind of just seldom used alternatives mspec labels. But due to this adoption of pansexual, it became its own thing instead of staying a seldom used alternative mspec label.

I have a post of sources on this, which you can find here. Another post on this topic from someone else, which I added onto to say that two different things can be true at the same time because the community is not one singular space and experience; saying some people/spaces were binary is not saying they all were, and neither cancels out the other. This post can be found here.

Bi activist Shiri Eisner discussed this on Twitter recently:

98% of the time, when reading a bi text written before 2010 or so, one would have to deal with overwhelming binarism and casual cissexism. Can we find support for trans and nonbinary people in the margins? Absolutely. However, it is in the margins. Has the bi community historically more supportive of trans people than other cis communities? Absolutely. But the bar is highly a high one. For example, the famous “don’t even assume there are only two genders” from the Bisexual Manifesto is directly preceded by the phrase “both genders”. Nonbinary definitions of bisexuality started solidifying only in the 2010s, largely as a response to the criticism forwarded by pansexual communities. In fact, pansexuality came into prominence *because* some people were alienated by bisexuality’s binary definitions. The reason why today the most agreed upon definitions of bisexuality are nonbinary is the advent of pansexuality. It challenged bi communities to think about binarism and casual cissexism, and to do better. Without it, the binary definitions would have likely stayed the same. The 2010s argument that bisexuality isn’t inherently binary has morphed into the myth that bisexuality was never anything else. We need to acknowledge our full history, as it took place in reality, without inventing indulgent myths whose only propose is to rid ourselves of an imagined “taint”. Lying isn’t helping our case, it only makes us less reliable.

The recent claim that bisexual has always meant all, or that it was never defined or discussed in binary ways by the bi community/movement is not true, and when it’s almost always pushed by people who are saying it in response to the mere existence of pansexuality, it’s very clear why they’re saying it. The unspoken “and therefor pan isn’t valid/necessary” is quite loud.

Like Eisner said, people went from correcting the idea that bisexual is inherently binary/transphobic, to claiming that the bi movement/community never defined or spoke about bisexual in binary ways. Meanwhile, every single book on bisexuality written by bisexual people that I’ve read has been binary in some capacity. That’s not to say there weren’t any nonbinary discussions or contributors, just that for the most part, the books were binary. Eisner even names some of the books in her Twitter thread.

So yeah, these people have just been overcorrecting to the point of rewriting history, which tells people that their lived experiences never happened and erases the work the community has done. They’re trying to advocate for and defend bisexuality, but because they have little knowledge on the community’s history, they’re honestly just doing the opposite.

[lavenderphoenix99]

wow. just wow.

this is why i'm sick of queer people creating yet another binary like "women and nonbinary vs non women" "women and nonmen vs cishet men" "trans and nonbinary vs cis"

SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

like quick, tell me, you transmultiphobic person, what is the definition of nonbinary again? what is the definition of genderqueer again???

why do we, as a community, shove a group of people who identifies as something that is LITERALLY OUT OF THE BINARY, as one category, yet again!!!??

why do we, as a community, not understanding and learning more about people whose identities literally q u e e r s gender, and to think that maybe, just maybe, they can't and won't be ever be quantified within "basically cis" or "basically trans" in their gender, just for a DAMN second????

like, just, just, THIIIINK about it, what @/transmultiphobia-discussion just said (with some addition of mine) about why genderfluid people might not identify as trans, you transmultiphobe bitchass:

genderfluid people can be fluid between genders that are close to their assigned gender at birth, and they damn well are welcome to identify as cis, and they're no less genderfluid because of it

maybe a genderfluid person feels like their cisgender part of their identity wants to be acknowledged, and so they don't wholly ID as trans, and like, you should respect that actually??? to acknowledge the wholeness of a person's gender??? crazy shit!!

and then i'll go over the main shit show from that piece of damned shit of a transmultiphobic human being:

HOW FUCKING INFLATED YOUR DAMN EGO WAS WHEN YOU TYPED THAT??? """MY COMMUNITY"""???

NOT ONLY YOU'RE DEAD WRONG, BECAUSE YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT THE ARBITER OF THE NONBINARY/GENDERQUEER COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY WITH SUCH SHIT ASS ATTITUDE,

THERE IS LITERALLY NO OWNER OF NONBINARY/GENDERQUEER COMMUNITY, YOU'RE JUST BEING MASK-OFF GATEKEEPING, PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY BEING SHOVED OUT OF IT, THE SPACES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY ACCEPTING OF ANY AND ALL KINDS OF NONBINARY/GENDERQUEER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

AND YOU KNOW DAMN FUCKING WELL, AS A NONBINARY PERSON YOURSELF, WHAT IT WOULD BRING TO US, IF WE WERE FORCIBLY EJECTED FROM OUR OWN COMMUNITY????

like... oh my goodness,

sorry not sorry for the extreme wording about this, but as an ambonec agender transmasc myself, i just can NOT stay silent about the erasure and ignorance about transmultiphobia issues anymore, i just CANNOT stand it when i see people erase one of my identity, erase my whole fucking transness, just because identify as a cisgender straight woman sometimes

i'm sick and tired of seeing me, and many many other people like me, treated as "JUST x" or "JUST y" not "x AND y" regarding our gender, and thus weaponize our multigenderedness against ourselves in order to feel good and... what? powerful? authoritative? inside your silly "safe spaces" (that are probably not safe in the first place)????

man, just... grow the fuck up. touch grass. go to a real life queer community event/spaces/communities, i promise there are people there who are being themselves and don't give a rat's ass about who is ackshually trans or who is ackshually cis, as long as they're being respectful there

anyways, OP, i hope you don't have to face those nasty ass gatekeeper again in your life, ever, and i suggest just swiftly block and report, if possible, people like those, and i'm sending you love <3 <3 <3 you're always welcome and supported here

and @transmultiphobia-discussion thank you SOOOOO DAMN MUCH for starting this discussion and bring our issues to light; the multigender/bigender/genderfluid/poly/pan/omnigender community are not going away anytime soon, we're here, we're queer, we won't be silenced anymore and we WILL fuck shit up if you dare mess with us

like the cool kids say: play stupid games, win stupid prizes

bye <3

(oh and btw, @transmultiphobia-discussion if you want me to take down this reblog because of the strongly worded response, please do tell me in the DMs! I understand if my words are making you uncomfortable)

I'm so pissed off right now

My mutual reblogs a post disrespecting genderfluid people who don't identify as trans. I'm not looking at the post so I might get some things wrong but the wording was approximately this:

"not all genderfluid people are trans" ...are you smoking crack? No one's AGAB is genderfluid. If you don't exclusively identify with your AGAB, you are trans. That's all the word means. By definition, all genderfluid people are trans. Stop being stupid.

Now, I'm not genderfluid, but I'm bigender so I share the multigender community and larger nonbinary/genderqueer community with them. I am also not trans. I'm isogender and I'm cisgender. I reblog with a long takedown of their claim, explaining why some genderfluid people (and why I, a person who doesn't exclusively identify with my AGAB) may not identify with being trans. I went over why personal identity matters more than the definition of transgender, that it's inclusive so people are welcomed into it if they wish to identify that way, but it's not an enforced identity. That they have to respect the identities of genderfluid, multigender, and nonbinary people who are not trans. I thought this person might just be meaning well but needing some opposition, but this bitch responds with (approximate wording again:)

So, just to be clear: You, a self-identified cisgender woman, come onto My (nonbinary and been out for 10 years) post about MY community to call me stupid for saying trans people are trans? Cool. #transphobia #enbyphobia #cis people shut the fuck up challenge

I just. That really showed their transmultiphobia. I am the gender that better suits their argument. The way they contrasted me being a cis woman with them being nonbinary, then calling it "MY community" very implicitly is degendering me, stripping me of my nonbinary/aporagender identity because it's easier to feign a point by saying I'm a cis woman, therefore an outsider who has no right to argue with them, a nonbinary person, on the topic. Also the fact they accepted my identity as a cisgender woman despite the fact their post that I replied to would have categorized me as transgender.

I am not a fucking outsider in the discussion! I don't identify as trans but that's irrelevant because the post wasn't about the trans community. It was about the nonbinary community. It was about the multigender community that I share with genderfluid people. IT WAS ABOUT NON-TRANS GENDERQUEER PEOPLE. MY COMMUNITY. NOT THEIRS. MINE. The post was blatantly disrespecting my identity, even if naming genderfluid people. I had every right to respond! I had every right to be in the discussion! I had every right to defend genderfluid people who might identify in the same way I do! Or the way *I* identify!

Clearly they didn't have a real response but they didn't want to read my response with an open mind. Didn't want to consider that there are non-trans genderqueer people. So I'm degendered, for the purpose of painting me as an outsider instead of acknowledging that I am a fellow genderqueer person who just doesn't identify as trans

classic example of "multigender people are whatever gender category that is most convenient to the person" folks!

jeez that makes me so angry. make a post about how all people like yourself are trans no matter how they actually describe themselves, and when you say something, suddenly you are, in fact, cis to them. may seem contradictory, but this happens to multigenders all the time. I've been called a predatory male, a confused trans man who won't fully accept is transness, and a cis woman invading trans spaces just by being a bigender lesbian. none of it is consistent nor makes any sense! but since I exist in multiple gendered categories, people refuse to accept them simultaneously and put me in whichever one fits their worldview. is convenient to their argument, by how much they like me and tolerate me.

and it is very telling that they view genderfluid as a gender in of itself, rather than a descriptor for someone's genders- the same way people go "multigender women/men aren't women/men, they're multigender!" The case of not seeing multigender people's identities as legitimate as monogender people's and having to settling for just "multigender," or else you're an invader or a predator to those monogender people. because if they did, it would make total sense why a genderfluid person might call themselves cis- some only switch between genders closely aligned to their assigned gender, for an example. like it's totally up to the person to describe their experiences with their gender identity and if cis more closely describes that than trans, even if they're not perfectly binary, that's fine!

I feel like messing with the cis/trans dichotomy and blurring the lines a bit is necessary is normalizing transhood and dismantling cisnormativity. like they're built off of the phenomenon of assigned gender at birth and forcibly assigned gender roles, "cis" being the default and "trans" considered divergent. if they're no longer assigned to people, is the gender binary is no longer relevant, then what significance would those terms really have anymore? if there is no "cis" or "trans," just people that exist as they please right from the get-go? isn't that what we want? why strictly enforce them onto anyone?