#i talked about manhood & womanhood but those aren’t the same as masculinity and femininity

[queer-reader-07]

going through the notes on this post is really interesting & fun to me because you can so clearly see who actually took the time to understand what i was getting at and who was just like “why is everything about gender?!!”

obviously there is so much more nuance to “be your gender on purpose” than i was able to convey in a tumblr post (people get degrees in this stuff for a reason)

but i do love seeing the cis people who either went “oh shit yeah. maybe i should think about what i am a little more.” or “yes! i’ve done this and it was so good for me!”

there have been a few people who have said something like “see but i’ve thought about it and there is no reason, i’m just indifferent to my gender.” which i guess on face value feels antithetical to my original post. but i would argue that to just be able to properly come to the conclusion of “i’m cis because it’s what’s easiest” (or smth similar) is in fact being on purpose. because you don’t come to that conclusion without thinking about your gender at least a little bit.

anyway i’m just so here for the discussion happening in the notes of this post <3

i think one of my spiciest takes is that i think cis people should be cis on purpose and not because it’s the “default”

ok hear me out before you go into the notes, i have reasons.

the main idea is that i think EVERYONE should explore and interrogate their gender identity and what their gender truly means to them. because 1) i don’t think any harm will ever come from wanting to understand yourself and your existence on a deeper level and 2) if everyone, including cis people, explored their gender it would be more generally accepted. thus, trans people or people questioning their transness wouldn’t be as othered when they start questioning and exploring their gender.

because here’s the deal. every trans person i know can tell you what their gender means. they can tell you what it means to be a man or a woman or neither or both or some other nebulous concept. they can describe it to you and explain it to you. they can tell you what their manhood or womanhood or neitherhood means to them, what it represents, how they knew that’s who they were.

every trans person i know (including myself) can articulate what their gender is in more words than “well i’m *insert gender* because i’m *insert gender*” (yes i know i’m always saying i can’t be bothered with gender but i do actually have a lot of feelings and words on my own)

i’ve talked to a lot of cis people about gender and they just simply can’t explain to me what womanhood or manhood is to them. so often it’s “well i’m a man cuz i’m a man. i look like a man i act like a man etc etc.” but what does a man look like? what does a man act like? and it’s usually people who consider themselves trans allies saying these things!

people should explore their gender. they should understand it more deeply. i don’t say “explore your gender” as a way to try and force anyone into a realization of transness, i say it because i want people to understand their gender. whether that be cis or trans or whatever.

to understand yourself more deeply is to understand your place in the world more accurately. learning more about who you are, and why you are, and how you are never hurts in the long run.

so yeah. be cis on purpose, be cis because you know deeply that you are cis, because you understand what that means to you.

and be trans on purpose. use the labels you like deliberately. dress in the way that brings you euphoria and mitigates dysphoria because you deserve that.

simply be on purpose. walk through life with deliberate steps, with solidified intent. because without doing so, how can we find our purpose on this earth and in this life?

[gay-otlc]

On Transmisogyny Exempt Privilege Dynamics

Introduction

I came across the article "On Transmisogyny Exempt Privilege Dynamics" and had a lot of thoughts about it. As a warning, this will include discussions of transphobia, intersexism and coercive gender assignment, violence, abuse, sexual assault, suicide, and misgendering.

Note on language 

This article uses transmisogyny affected (TMA) and transmisogyny exempt (TME) language throughout. I don’t entirely agree with the way the author uses these terms, but in addressing the article, I will use those same terms for consistency and to engage with what the author is saying. I have read a lot of varying perspectives on the use of TMA/TME language but I am not interested in discussing or debating the terms on this post; the ideas themselves are my focus.

The author uses TMA to refer to trans women and other trans people who were assigned male at birth, and trans TME to refer to trans men and other trans people who were assigned female at birth. Intersex people were not mentioned. 

The Disclaimer that apparently isn't

This isn’t an attack on the author. This isn’t an attack on trans women & fems. This isn’t an attack on transmisogyny theory. This isn’t an attack on TMA/TME language. This isn’t meant to be an attack at all. I think the author has good points to make about transmisogyny, particularly in this other article of hers. But I think their perception of the experiences of transmasculine and nonbinary people assigned female at birth is incomplete, and at times, entirely incorrect. I wanted to address these aspects of the article.

Aspects of the article to expand upon

TME trans people represent to the system the affirmation of the very rules that TMA people break and are severely punished for.

TMA people do challenge the societal rule that men are superior to women, referred to as the holy rule of patriarchy in “We Need To Talk About Transmisogyny.” In “choosing” to transition towards womanhood and/or away from manhood, TMA people are perceived as betraying the patriarchy, and punished for it. This is a major aspect of transmisogyny. 

It's also important to note: Trans women & fems also challenge societal rules of gender and sex, that one must fit into a strict gender and sex binary, and your gender must align perfectly with your sex assigned at birth. But TME trans people don’t affirm these rules. All trans people, and intersex people, break the rules of our cisnormative, intersexist society. 

Seen from the patriarchal and bio-essentialist perspective of wider society, the fact that women would rather be men is proof of male supremacy and is — often unconsciously — rewarded by society. They do also — consciously and unconsciously — stand out positively from their systemic inversion, TMA people, who betray male supremacy, whose femininity is considered a transgression, and whose rejection of manhood proves their derangement, dangerousness and untrustworthiness, as they fail to uphold the fundamental truth of patriarchy.

TMA people’s “betrayal” of male supremacy, as said above, is severely punished by society. But “women wanting to become men” aren’t rewarded. They threaten male supremacy as well; if “women” can be men, then how can men be biologically or inherently superior? The patriarchy believes that of course women want to be men, because men are superior, but women can’t actually be men. A woman who wants to be a man must be put back in her place.

Feminist inversion: Within liberatory (e.g. feminist, queer, trans, etc) spaces there usually is an inversion of the male/female hierarchy, privileging women and femininity over men and masculinity. Not as an alternative model to wider society, but as a corrective. These spaces too often trip over the complexities that transness introduces to the simplified models we all have internalized. Few of these spaces can avoid an implicit elevation of TME trans people based on their feminine association and policing TMA people because of their masculine association.

Demonization of perceived association with manhood and/or masculinity is a significant problem in feminist, queer, trans, etc spaces. TMA people are policed and punished as a result of this bias, especially if they are pre- or non-transitioning, and/or have a butch or masculine gender expression. And in many of those spaces, TMA people are viewed as a threat to cis women (and often TME trans people) as a result of transmisogynistic concepts of “AMAB socialization” or “male biology.” This is horrible and should not happen.

But this feminist inversion doesn’t universally elevate TME trans people. Trans men, and transmasculine people who come “too close” to manhood, are very frequently demonized and viewed as a threat in these spaces. In my experience, queer and trans people– even friends of mine– have encouraged me to identify as nonbinary, discouraged me from “becoming a man” because men are evil and dangerous. Moving away from womanhood, and especially “choosing” manhood, was seen as a betrayal of feminism. Most trans men & mascs I know have similar experiences.

For a lot of men their male privilege is curtailed by other axis of oppression. Disabled men, fat men, Black men, poor men, to name a few, especially when combined, experience a lot fewer benefits than the normative white men most people think about when they imagine an average holder of male privilege. Trans is just another modifier in the mix.

The crucial difference between marginalized cis men versus trans men is that, for otherwise marginalized cis men, they are still recognized as men. They may be seen as lesser men, inferior men, or failed men, but men nonetheless, or at least something close. Trans men, on the other hand, are not seen as the wrong type of man; we are seen as the wrong type of woman. As the author states earlier in the article: “They [society] do not recognize us as our self-determined genders or the intention behind and the meaning we give to our presentation and appearance.” 

Since they are, before and often even beyond transition, categorized as women by the system they are afforded access to women-only support, resources and spaces which would be denied to most — if not all — trans women independent of their transitions.

This isn’t always the case; especially after transitioning, trans men are very much denied access to women-only resources and spaces. See this article about transmasculine abuse survivors, and this personal experience of trying to find shelter for a homeless trans man.

And even when they aren’t denied access, that’s not a privilege. Being misgendered isn’t a privilege for anyone; not for nonpassing or closeted/boymoding TMA people, and not for TME people being forced into the category of “women.” TME trans people in these situations are forced to misgender and (re)closet themselves, and in some cases, detransition. 

It’s a major problem that trans women are denied access to “women only” spaces. They 100% should have access. But it’s not a privilege when trans men are afforded access (which is not always the case), at the expense of their own identity. 

Aspects of the article that are incorrect

That this difference is necessarily binary is often used as a supposed proof that the TMA/TME distinction was itself divisive— or worse. But the binary nature is a direct result of how transmisogyny works in society. It is to a large degree based on the binary of the “assigned sex at birth” (ASAB, either male (AMAB) or female (AFAB)), so naming and describing it cannot avoid binaries, lest we cease to talk about it altogether.

Unfortunately, assigned sex at birth is more of a binary than sex itself, as intersex people are sometimes given coercive treatments (nonconsensual surgery and hormones) to force them into a binary. But sex isn’t a binary. Defining TMA/TME as a sex based binary, without considering intersex people who don’t fit into that binary, is a crucial oversight on the author’s part. Intersex people deserve to be acknowledged and included in trans theory. 

There happens a weird and twisted fusion of the worst associations of men and women in TMA people and the best associations of both men and women in TME trans people.

The first part of that is true. The second part isn’t. Quite the opposite, in fact. TME trans people are hysterical, confused, stupid little girls who don’t know what’s best for them and need cis men to control their bodies. And TME trans people are disgusting, dangerous “men” who have mutilated themselves, and betrayed women to join the enemy. We also get the worst associations of both manhood and womanhood– just in a different form. 

Stereotypes and tropes about TME trans people being dangerous, scheming, untrustworthy, sexually perverted/predatory or vilifying them in other ways are all but unheard of.

What about "gender traitor" rhetoric? What about the view of trans MLW as perverted butch lesbians, or trans MLM as straight girls fetishizing "real" gay men? What about the fearmongering surrounding famous trans men & mascs on the internet, who are "convincing young girls to transition"? What about the negativity surrounding gender affirming surgery? What about the belief that testosterone makes someone violent and abusive? These stereotypes, though perhaps less prevalent than infantilizing claims that TME trans people are confused and can't think for themselves, absolutely exist.

Visibility

While often enviously and jealously lamented, TME trans people’s transition make them ultimately less visible and hence less of a target. 

The invisibility (erasure) of TME trans people doesn’t prevent the violence against us; it just means that the violence goes unaddressed, swept under the rug. Trans men and nonbinary people with "female" on their birth certificate experience extremely high rates of sexual assault, and trans men have higher rates of violence and abuse from people they live with (compared to trans women, who have higher rates of violence from people they don't live with). We're a less visible target, but a target nonetheless.

Of course, this isn’t to say that the increased visibility of TMA people is a privilege in the slightest. TMA people are subject to extreme negative attention and transmisogynistic portrayal, and it’s horrific. Erasure and hypervisibility are both weapons of transphobia, and they both cause us harm.

There is also a distinct lack of transantagonistic tendencies and movements putting any noticable focus on TME trans people. The maybe most famous transantagonistic movement, trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF), is almost exclusively concerned with antagonism against TMA people. TERFs do not treat TME trans people with hostility, but pity.

Transphobes, including TERFs, are focusing on TME trans people quite a bit. Just look at the rhetoric surrounding "rapid onset gender dysphoria" (ROGD) and Irreversible Damage, the rhetoric about how we are "mutilating our bodies" and "chopping off our beautiful breasts." JK Rowling's transphobic essay talks about how trans men are transitioning because they are confused, mentally ill, often autistic young girls who want to escape womanhood. TERFs want TME trans people to detransition and recloset themselves, something that would leave many of us horribly dysphoric and, in many cases, suicidal. How is trying to drive us to suicide not hostile? TME trans people can also be correctively raped by TERFs to "remind them that they are lesbian women."

Yet there is little policing of their [TME trans people’s] presentation

This simply does not match up with the experiences of TME trans people, particularly trans men & mascs, that I know. Every transmasculine person I’ve ever talked to has had their gender expression policed, often violently so.

Calls for physical violence against TME trans people are next to non-existent.

Please read the archive of violence against transmasculine people. Please look at our sexual assault rate. Our rates of hate crimes and murder may be lower than TMA people, but the violence against us often takes a different form, and is then ignored. It’s not next to non-existent; it’s just erased. Please don't ignore us.

Conclusion/the disclaimer that was

There is this thing that almost all TMA people do when they want to talk about transmisogyny or TMA/TME relations, and that is add a disclaimer, most often right at the start of their text or video, where they wholly commit to the support of TME trans people and pledge their unconditional allegiance to them, affirming several times that nothing they’re about to say could change anything about that, and how much we love our TME trans siblings. You will not find anything like that in a critique of TMA people by TME trans people. Ever.

Huh. I’m a TME trans person. I wonder what that was at the top of my post, then. 

In fact, disclaimers are a common phenomenon among transmasculine people who talk about transmasculine issues. The opening page of the transandrophobia explained carrd is a disclaimer you have to agree you've read before continuing. The beginning of this article on transmasculine erasure is a paragraph-long disclaimer about transfeminine people. Posts on tumblr about transandrophobia and transmasculine experiences constantly include these disclaimers.

So who is privileged over whom, who holds power over whom, who has reason to be afraid to speak, who is not allowed to speak on their experiences, when TMA people are the ones that need the disclaimers to ward off some of the inevitable abuse, but TME trans people don’t?

That’s an excellent question. When TMA and TME trans people both need disclaimers to even attempt to prevent abuse and harassment, who is privileged over whom? Is it possible that we all have reason to be afraid to speak? That we’re all denied the authority to speak on our own experiences?

(Disclaimer: TMA people do not have privilege over TME trans people.)

(Disclaimer: Trans women do not have privilege over other trans people.)

[spoonsforminutes]

I keep seeing posts of people hating on afab autistics (with the word white tacked onto it for people to sound progressive) accusing ‘low support/high functioning’ (put it in quotation marks because I know people don’t like functioning labels including me) afabs of ‘centring ourselves’ in the autism community especially on social media, accusing us of turning autism into a ‘quirk/superpower’ and saying we aren’t taking it seriously. What’s worse, a recent post I saw was by an autistic woman herself! When I called her a misogynist, she said I was ‘misunderstanding’ her post 😡

I understood perfectly well the ever ongoing debate on how there are ‘too many autistic afabs’ now. It was baffling to me that OP has a pretty large following for posting content on how she is constantly treated badly for being afab, then contributes to the stigma and responds to autism moms accusing afabs of ‘minimising’ our condition?!! I lost all my sympathy for them.

Idk, I’m just tired of afabs constantly being told we are taking resources, and now even ‘space’ online (can’t friggin win) when talking about health conditions/autism. We are always ‘taking from people who have it worse’ according to others. We are ‘taking high support needs people’s voices’. Exhausting.

I MEANT TO ANSWER THIS IN APRIL IM SO SORRY

With everything that's been going on in the sphere of gender issues, it's definitely made me realize that quite a few women or afab individuals have taken the misogynistic treatment they faced and then projected it onto others, perhaps as a way to process all the hurt and trauma. It's definitely not okay to do, but oftentimes projection is a way that people try to soothe themselves, but all it does is create more problems. As an afab individual myself who largely acts able-bodied despite the harm it does to my health, I've had a lot of people attempt to use my femininity to both praise my damaging work ethic while also sowing doubt into my own abilities, which is super fucking ableist to anyone regardless of their disability. Feminism should work to be more inclusive because whenever there are discussions around women's rights, a lot of it is rightfully on empowering women and balancing out gender inequality, but I don't think a lot of it can apply to those with disabilities. I think bout what happened to the term "girlboss": originally, it tries to empower women and womanhood to positions of power, but then the term became a meme and with it, all of its credibility was lost. Sexism turned it into a term where women in power can be ridiculed because "girlbossing" has shifted where the idea of afab individuals receiving authority is treated as a mockery due to undeserved effort, and that's ultimately what sexism is: anything outside of manhood and traditional masculinity is not given the same respect and thus allows anyone to degrade a whole person's effort based on their gender alone.

I hate functioning labels as well because by that logic, the fact that I'm college-educated and working makes it seem like I don't require support, but I do. EVERYONE needs support, but because the U.S. in particular is obsessed with individuality, community and mutual aid has been ridiculed by the capitalist mindset. Although I'm not autistic, I've had quite a few autistic friends, and genuinely I think autism is so cool. Like with my own disability, it can definitely suck ass, but everyone I've known with autism has strengths surrounding intelligence and humor. What's so wrong with considering it a superpower? It's literally your life and how you function, and especially since many able-bodied people want to make disability and neurodiversity a bad thing so that they can shame you, refusing to play into that and empowering yourself is huge. Plus, it's genuinely fun to upset people by being yourself. And since this particular autistic woman is complaining about both gender and autism, her projection just shows why ableism needs to be openly discussed and pointed out. I will probably struggle with internalized ableism all my life because neither culture nor disability awareness currently allow me to truly live life WITH a disability. Unfortunately, I feel that too much of the conversation is still about hiding or minimizing disability to appease the thoughts of others.

Sexism is also the reason for why people will complain about too many afab individuals with autism. I feel like the autistic community is well aware of the difficulties in being afab and getting a diagnosis because sexism is alive and well in our perspective of health. While getting my degree, I realized that gym bros are not actually wrong when they talk bout health and fitness; the actual issue again stems from how we view health and disability. Not only are gym bros operating on this assumption that everyone's health is fully able-bodied, but also they assume that every health issue can be fixed with a healthy lifestyle which isn't true? Ignoring the fact that research still uses white cisgender male data as the human physiological default, if you have an enzyme that doesn't function correctly in metabolism, intense exercise will definitely make you sicker, not better. It's the same with disability. With autism, the diagnostic criteria is supposed to help identify what possible supports you could need, but it still depends on what is actually helpful to you personally. With this economic crisis and the potential downfall of capitalism, disability is actually a great way to talk bout how capitalism isn't possible for anyone because productivity and the economy are talked about as if they are magical forces instead of behavior carried out by people. Capitalism pushes even able-bodied standards, so by supporting disability, we can also argue for better conditions for everyone, but that's the ideal scenario.

I ramble a lot when I write because writing is essentially how I think, but yeah, it's unfortunate that she's currently using her platform to push harmful ideas about gender, disability, and autism. No matter how severe your disability is, there is no such thing as taking away needed resources because those resources are for you. It's great if you don't need as much support as others, but if you need support, you should absolutely be allowed to do anything that makes your life easier. I'm largely going to be ignoring what society thinks bout disability and even about life in general because doing what society thinks has only ever hurt me. It's very funny to me when people try to complain about marginalized people as if we're the problem, not the people and the systems who reinforce the perspective that asking for help, asking for accommodations, is somehow a big ask. It's not, and I think we should be more mean about it because it's wild that we let people dictate what kind of support we can ask for.

To all of my autistic followers: hope you had a wonderful April, and please feel free to correct me on anything! I'm always learning, and your voice is incredibly important.

[lycandrophile]

i hate how when people see us talking about transandrophobia, they immediately think we’re talking about “how transfem oppress us.” but people who talk about transmisogyny aren’t expected to have to clarify that they aren’t talking about transmasc. what is it with all these double standards?

in my experience, a lot of those double standards come from a view of manhood/masculinity as being inherently oppressive paired with a view of womanhood/femininity as incapable of being oppressive

a lot of people in conversations about gendered oppression come from a foundation in what i like to call Baby’s First Feminism, which teaches that women are oppressed and men are the ones doing the oppressing, that all men have oppressive power and all women are incapable of possessing it

and they try to map those overly simplistic ideas onto gendered power dynamics among trans people, resulting in a belief that trans manhood/masculinity is oppressive and trans womanhood/femininity is incapable of being oppressive

so the implication that someone might believe transmascs oppress transfems isn’t seen as some bad thing that you need to avoid at all costs — in fact, to a lot of people, it’s common sense, and they would never make a disclaimer saying they don’t believe that’s true because they honestly do believe it’s true, and why would they lie? and even those who don’t believe it usually see it as an understandable conclusion to come to

at the same time, the implication that someone might believe transfems oppress transmascs is heresy — how could the group associated with womanhood and femininity ever have power over the group associated with manhood and masculinity? it goes against everything they’ve ever been told about gendered power dynamics and oppression!

and they’re not wrong to be upset at the idea that someone might believe that; it’s clearly not true, and spreading the idea that it could be true undeniably does a lot of harm

they have every right to be upset when someone implies that transfems oppress transmascs — the problem is that the vast majority (if not all) of us are not in any way implying that

the only reason they think we are is because they assume that one group of trans people being oppressed means the other must be doing the oppressing, because they’re still working off of that Feminism 101 logic that says one group must be the Absolute Oppressor and the other must be the Absolute Victim, and they don’t see any other way that gendered oppression could play out

(and hell, i can’t even really judge them for that because until relatively recently, i also hadn’t moved past that simplistic logic, and the only reason i did move past it is because my own lived experiences of oppression as a trans man basically forced me to consider other, more nuanced possibilities)

and i think people also just tend to react more strongly to possible implications that transfems oppress transmascs because accusing transfems of being oppressors is a Classic Transphobe Move which most people are very familiar with — and honestly, that strong reaction is absolutely warranted in situations where there actually is evidence that someone might be implying that

but when it comes to transmascs, even the people who don’t believe we oppress transfems still don’t react strongly to others’ implications that we do because it’s not as well known of a Transphobe Tactic (most people are more familiar with us being infantilized or erased than demonized) so it doesn’t register in as many people’s minds as a Bad Thing To Imply, and people are a lot less likely to question if that is what someone believes or expect a disclaimer if they don’t believe it

basically, these double standards exist because for the people perpetuating them, they don’t look like double standards at all — the difference in expectations makes perfect sense based on their worldview

i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: one of the biggest reasons people are so reluctant to believe trans men and transmascs face a unique form of gendered oppression is because for many people, accepting that fact would require them to totally rework their entire belief system regarding gender dynamics, and sticking with the more simplistic way of looking things is just...so much easier

[dkettchen]

BLACK MIRROR S5E1 “STRIKING VIPERS” E X P L A I N E D

-with the help of gender and game theory-

Y’all asked for it so here we go

Some things before we start: -If you were watching the episode looking for gay/trans shit, and got disappointed, I’m sorry but I can’t help you because that’s just not what the episode was about and that is ok. It explored some aspects of queer experience, and the limbo between queer and cis-straight experience, that isn’t usually addressed in such an honest and indepth way, which I think is just as important as trans or gay rep.  -I will focus my analysis on the core theme of what certain academics writing about androgyny call the “moment of transgression” so in this case the question of ‘what is Karl/Roxette’s deal & what does that mean for Danny/Lance’s feelings toward and interactions with them?’. -CW: transphobia, homophobia, toxic masculinity, (rpg) uncanny valley stuff, you get it, you know what subjects we’ll be talking about here. 

Now!

I’d like to start by pointing out the title “Striking Vipers” to get the phallus talk out of the way right off the bat x’D: It’s a very blatant penis metaphor, and Vipers specifically are venomous, so represent toxic masculinity. The image of them striking signals danger. The repetition of phallic symbols represents the threat of castration (see medusa turning them bois to stone & the heroic masculinity of the mirror shielded boi who managed to defeat her), which to phallocentric masculinity is the scawiest thing there is (losing the phallus = losing manhood = death?? I guess??). Striking Vipers means that toxic masculinity, by nature, is a threat to itself. (I could talk for hours about the exact warped logic of phallocentricity but Imma spare y’all cause I don’t think it’s relevant for this, I’d even go as far as saying this episode was anti-phallic (which I use here as a more inclusive word for “feminist”, as the episode’s core is about two guys, but still focused on them experiencing and embracing feminine power and freeing themselves from phallocentricity(/patriarchy)’s grasp, just like “what men want” was preoccupied with the toxic masculinity of its female protagonist)) That sets up the kind of horror the episode will be about, the male fear of castration, of loss of identity, of having to face the fact that traditional masculinity is toxic even to the people who conform to it. 10/10 title choice.

Next up: the core question of what label to put on Karl and Danny’s VR interactions (‘Fellas, is it gay to fuck ur best friend in a lady body in VR?’). Which leads to the first question which is: what gender is Karl when he’s playing as Roxette?  An essentialist might say: ‘Well he’s a man irl so he’s still a man even if he plays with a female avatar. Danny’s attraction to him is either him being trapped or just plain old gay.’ But I don’t think that’s the case. It’s not a trap scenario (have some videos on traps and how they’re not real actually: (x.), (x.)), because both people involved know the exact parameters of the situation. Danny knows this is Karl in Roxette’s body, there’s nothing hidden, no misunderstanding to be had here. I also don’t think it’s gay because if it was this would’ve happened irl or with two male avatars, but it only happened once one of them was in a female avatar, that was the change that made it happen. It’s not a fetishising phallic/trans women scenario either, because it’s the opposite, it’s a man’s mind in a woman’s body. There’s no doubt about Karl being a man irl, a queer man sure, but definetely a man. He’s just too into -womanhood while playing her for me to say he’s still male when he’s in that form, like Karl as Roxette isn’t a trans guy as a man’s mind in a female body usually would be (like f.e. Ranma 1/2), I also don’t think Karl as Roxette is an androgyne/non-binary/third term either, because again, he’s embracing her womanhood and the role that comes with it, to the extreme that is hetero PiV sex, too much. I’d argue what we see is the closest to the liberation and euphoria described by other queer men when doing drag, she’s just a more extreme version of drag, of crossplaying, making the fantasy real, wearing not only the clothes of a woman but the body too. Roxette as Karl’s avatar is an alter ego, who is female, so -on the risk of sounding like the biggest performativist since Judith Butler- Karl as Roxette presents as female, so, for all intents and purposes, is female in that moment, regardless of his irl persona maintaining his male gender outside of that. 

But that wasn’t what we wanted to know, was it. Because even if, in the moment that Karl plays Roxette, we can say that person is female, that doesn’t eliminate the fact that Karl, outside of that, isn’t and that he’s still the one playing her. It’s the notion of how the player/actor/performer and avatar/character/persona aren’t the same thing and can have different relationships with someone in real life vs in the game, and how that can be confusing to think about because there is no clear line between the two, something that is called “bleed” in ludology(/game studies, from lat. ludus: game or school; referring to the gladiator schools in like the colosseum), despite their relationships being fundamentally different (in this case friendship irl vs passionate love in game).  Take TAZ as an example: The McElroys are related, but in playing a trpg, the DM, usually Griffin, takes up the mantle of all NPCs in the game world, including love interests. Griffin played Julia, Kravitz, and Danny (different Danny lol), but he’s talking to his brother, except he isn’t, is he, cause it’s not Griffin talking and it’s not his brother responding, it’s two characters interacting. A similar uncanny valley can be found in actor/character bleed: Take Ludi and Pom (the actors for Lance and Roxette) in this one: like 80% of their screentime was spent making out or having fake sex. These actors aren’t dating (as far as I’m aware lol), this is their job, to fake love each other on screen, imagine having to do that with a coworker you feel nothing for. It’s the characters that feel something and you have to play that feeling (which is so meta at that point, they’re playing characters that are avatars being played by characters in the show). Also, talking of role-playing, can we appreciate the scene of Danny & Theo at the bar where they’re role-playing and she’s like that was hot and he’s like mental note bae’s into role-playing, because DAMN that foreshadowing of the erotic potential of roleplay as a concept.

But it’s not role-playing really either with Danny and Karl, is it? They’re playing in avatars other than themselves but they’re not fully a different person. They still very much feel the same just in a different form. Their emotions are real even though they might only apply to part of their experience, the in-game part. Yet they obviously take them seriously and personal and get influenced by them outside the game. Maybe the question is what is and is not role-playing? Where does the bleed start and end, and do we even need to know the answer to those questions? They answer those questions for themselves in the end by testing out their feelings irl to see if they track or not, fully ready for both possibilities (which 10/10 character development love it). They want clarity. It’s about the emotional limbo fantasy brings with it. It’s the same question “Are traps gay” is about. (Not the “Is it ok to feel attracted to androgynous ppl” one necessarily, but) “Does feeling attracted to the fantasy mean you feel attracted to the “real” thing underneath?” Are the feelings for the fantasy alone or also for the reality? Are they only applicable to the latter and does that change something about what you thought you knew about yourself? It’s a question about the fringe edges of limited/monosexuality and the very fabric of reality. 

Let’s return to Karl to look at his experience as Roxette. We’ve established that she is female, but what is Karl while playing her? In the spirit of queer drag as liberating, it’s almost like he’s taking a break from being Karl when playing as her. Drag, crossplay, or this extreme version of it, functions as a break from the toxicity and limitations of traditional gender roles (so in this case traditional masculinity). It is freeing, though what does it free? Some genderless spirit inhabiting each person? But then how do you explain the firm gender identity lots of people, including for all we know Karl, experience in everyday life? As a trans person I know that there is SOMETHING to gender on some level that can create gender dysphoria (social and/or physical) for people when put in a body they don’t identify with. As a drag performer, trpg enthousiast, and notorious crossplayer, I know that taking a break from that reality and being somebody else can be relieving, a break from your own problems. So what is that part of us that translates into fantasy? I feel like this goes into transhumanist territory which I don’t know enough about to even attempt to provide an answer. I think what it comes down to in terms of gender theory is, this is a situation at the height of where performativism is true and relevant. There is a relativity to the nature of reality and gender itself. Whatever base essence there is that causes gender dysphoria at a mismatch between outside and inside, doesn’t apply here. Both notions (of essential and performative gender) are real and have an impact on people but neither is always the case and neither is never the case. They’re not mutually exclusive. 

So, seeing as it seems impossible to pinpoint what gender Karl/Roxette qualifies as (other than all and/or none), let’s look at the nature of Danny/Lance and Karl/Roxette’s interactions and feelings toward those interactions and each other to try and contextualise what label(s) they might fit under.  The desire on Danny’s side when faced with Roxette’s form shows itself in a way he’d never feel toward Karl. That visual change, and the social changes it brings with it (in gender role), makes it so extreme, because it pairs the parts of his friend he appreciates and enjoys (personality and whatever deeper connection a close friendship brings with it), with a form that is attractive to him. That change translates to Karl too. In playing with this new form that has a different role and a different effect on someone he’s known for so long, he flows into that, melts into this new persona and lives it up! The way they interact in game isn’t gay. It is very much reflecting how straight attraction and female sexuality works. On one hand it’s based in undeniable difference (hetero = different), and on the other hand Karl/Roxette’s enjoyment thereof is based in being desirable, in having that power of seduction just by existing, that notion of feminine power and the freedom that comes with it. It’s not autogynephilia, that would imply he gets off on the idea of himself as a woman, which is not the case, he gets off on being desired as a woman, which is what female sexuality is about (source: ContraPoints’ Autogynephilia video (which I recommend, it’s very good))

Still whenever Karl tries to get Danny to keep having VR sex with him/Roxette, he talks about her in 3rd person, like a persona. In saying “it’s just like porn” he poses something that is very much a different activity (acting out the porn by -doin’ it-) as a homosocially (social as opposed to sexual/romantic) acceptable one (watching porn together which I’ve been told is a thing). He attempts to differentiate himself from his female persona and enjoyment there-of (by objectifying her, like a porn actress to be watched rather than identified with), himself and Danny from the queerness (in enjoying femininity and in Danny being down with basically fucking a drag-queen) and to retreat back into heteronormative traditional masculinity, away from the scawy unknown of exploring your sexuality. His internalised homo- and transphobia makes him suppose that Danny, as a supposed straight guy, will only respond to the safety of assured non-queerness, which, honestly, I don’t think is the case with him. Karl supposes his cancelling on him and not wanting to do it anymore is out of the fear for his sexual identity or whatever, but from what I can tell, while Danny also seems to be rather confused about what it all means, the reasons he cancels their nightly sessions, and rejects Karl/Roxette, are always about not wanting his marriage to fall apart. He quite clearly prefers hot VR sex to hanging out with his wife, and cancels out of duty to her rather than fear. Even the first time they kiss, Karl is the one to freak out first. Danny seems much calmer about the attraction part of the situation, to the point of in the end being the one to take initiative and make them try it out irl to put an end to the confusion.

The episode hits hard because it takes the way men play video games and brings it to its logical conclusion. Video games are mens safe-space, and they do play with that playful flirty banter. The show takes that and makes it real, including taking it to its extreme conclusion that is -doin’ it-. It infiltrates the male safe space by taking normalised behaviour, and taking it so far that it puts traditional masculinity and heteronormative attraction in question, the very thing the safe space was supposed to protect them from. That’s why it’s existentially horrifying for the main characters (and viewers that identify with them) and qualifies as a black mirror episode even without having a homo-/trans-/biphobic ending (like other media that put traditional masculinity in question usually do, not to mention all the horror based in queer-coding) 

Hope y’all enjoyed this journey into a bit of mind-bending game and gender theory! Pls don’t expect me to do this like ever again bc I need to go work on my actual essay rip x’D 

[ask-pride-color-schemes]

Um so I have like a kinda long/multi part question? So first is that I'm nonbinary (fem-aligned, masc-aligned, and genderless) but I've been identifying as male/masc-aligned for most of the time I've found out. I'm just now acknowledging the fem-aligned part and adjusting to it. I don't like being called a girl/young lady or she/her pronouns and I tend to say boy or he/him (mainly cause people don't understand/won't use they/them and I don't feel uncomfortable with it?) Part 1

(Part 2) and I don't know how to explain that? And also I don't know if I'm allowed in sapphic/lunarian/wlw spaces or mlm/achillian/solarian spaces? Like I can breathe and say "I'm gay in every way" (usually coping jokes) now but I don't know if I can? I know people get so bitchy and attack-y with it so I don't want to enter a space I shouldnt be in cause misinformation and then get ripped apart by people.. like I just don't know where I'm allowed or how to explain this to people? Help??

I’m on a similar boat wrt people acknowledging my gender - my gender is both feminine and masculine. However, people will only equate me to a butch girl, even though I’m more feminine than masculine, even though I’m still masculine.

Since I know people equate masculinity with manhood and femininity with womanhood, I tend to omit my actual gender while I’m talking about my experiences with more ignorant people, just saying I’m nonbinary. I don’t use either she/her or he/him, and I’m usually upfront with this when I’m surrounded by people I will actually need to be with for some time.

If I used he/him, though, I would just say that pronoun choice does not necessarily goes with gender, and that she/her just feels like other people are disregarding my identity.

About being “allowed” or not, it’s always a matter of that particular group. I would talk to them first, just as I usually have to do regarding “LGBT” community stuff. Like, “hey, I’m a nonbinary person who is as aligned with masculinity than with femininity, do you think it would be adequate for me to attend this meeting/interact with this blog/join this conversation?”

(I would just be careful with the reasons why you are being allowed: is it just because you pass as a certain binary gender? Because people assume you have certain genitalia? Because people think you are just confused and that, by interacting with ~respectable~ sapphic/achillean people? Or because anyone with a certain gender alignment is welcome regardless of other gender alignments?)

My personal opinion is that no nonbinary fem and masc person will possibly be as intrusive as an actual person of a wholly different gender on a male or female only space. Besides, if your experiences are somewhat the same as binary sapphic/achillean experiences, you should have a place at those communities. However, that’s just my opinion, and other people may disagree.

There’s also no need to fit in with both/either sapphic or achillean spaces. If you don’t feel comfortable among binary people who will possibly judge you, you can just go to nonbinary, genderless or diamoric spaces instead. Gay is kind of an umbrella term in some cases, and plenty of nonbinary people call themselves gay jokingly even if they aren’t exclusively attracted to similar aligned genders.

As for solarian and lunarian, yes, you can identify with both. Those are also optional labels that you may or may not use regardless of alignment, but they were already made with the possibility of not being exclusive.

I hope I have answered everything!

~ Tath

[comrade-meow]

(Part 2 of 3)

Sadomasochism

“You’ve got other really fun things, like this idea of disempowerment. Here you’ve got the castration — sorry, I mean the beheading of Holofernes — and then on the right, you’ve got the same thing,” Sofia says, alluding to a pornographic image of two males engaging in a sex act as a woman ‘forces’ one of the men into what would be the submissive female role in heterosexual BDSM practices: bound, with a slave collar, being sexually abused. Sofia does not elaborate on why he believes these two images portray “the same thing”. Presumably he is attempting to establish a correlation between a man being violated as a woman and death; that the loss of the masculine role — castration — is metaphorically equivalent to being killed. Framed this way, the common euphemisms of transgender activism can possibly be traced back to BDSM practices and the narrative that has been constructed around fetishes.

For instance, so-called dead naming (referring to a trans-identified person by their birth name) could also be considered as a reference to ego death, or the complete loss of subjective self-identity. This framework could assist in explaining why it is that trans activists insist that words are literal violence, where the act of naming men as men, for example, deconstructs their illusory, projected self. In turn, it is possible that linguistic ‘transphobia’ can elicit a similar thrill as the sort induced by being humiliated, even when the humiliation is not a taunt, but the truth. In this sense, the public is unwittingly being duped into participating in BDSM, either as the dominant — those who criticize gender ideology — or submissive — trans activists themselves. Crucially, material reality, especially women’s reality, is being used as the vehicle for this rouse. When one considers that BDSM practices involved in forced feminization revolve around humiliation as a key point of arousal, this also could implicate an element of sexual pleasure involved for some in being considered to be subjugated or oppressed — that the male claim to a female identity is, in itself, a fetishization of women’s systemic subordination.

The Eroticization of Castration

“Here we’ve got the very traditional sissy porn Lolita dress that my friend Torrey Peters lent me… who wrote an amazing book called The Masker which I recommend for everyone on this chat.”

A brief explanation of Torrey Peters and why this matters: Torrey Peters, a trans-identified male, is a published American author who has found a market for books of written pornography with loosely developed plots. The Masker follows participants in a masking convention, where men don silicone body suits and face masks in order to resemble women and subsequently engage in sexual activity with each other. Peters’ portrays this fetish lifestyle as a pathway towards a decision to permanently alter one’s body through breast implants and hormones. In March 2021, Peters was long-listed for the UK Women’s Prize in fiction for his recent publication, Destransition, Baby, which I have written about here. Peters is increasingly being promoted by US media, and his ex, Harron Walker, also a trans-identified male, is employed by the women’s magazine W and has written for ‘feminist’ outlet Jezebel, having formerly written for the notoriously misogynist platform Vice, as well as Out magazine.

Sofia is also clearly a great admirer of American academic Andrea Long Chu, who has been published in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy (2018) and Differences, a Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies (2019). Chu, a trans-identified male, wrote Females: A Concern, which was published in 2019 by Verso Press, and contains remarkable statements of misogyny as though they were undisputed facts.

Here Sofia quotes an essay, Did Sissy Porn Make Me Trans, wherein Chu argues that womanhood can be defined as a state of powerlessness. Chu presented this essay as a speech at a number of reputable universities in the US, including Columbia University, Vassar College, UCLA, and UC Berkeley.

“Castration anxiety is easily mistaken for the fear that one will be castrated. In fact, it is the fear that one, being castrated, will like it. The threat, in other words, is not that you will lose power (this is basically inevitable, and not much worth worrying about), but that you won’t actually want power, after all. Too often, we imagine powerlessness as the suppression of desire by some external force (maybe someone else’s desire), and we forget that desire, in itself, is often, if not always, an experience of powerlessness. Most desire is nonconsensual, most desires aren’t desired.” — Andrea Long Chu, Did Sissy Porn Make Me Trans?

The idea that women are castrated males is not new, nor is it particularly insightful in regards to the reality of women’s lives. Much has been said and written about this in psychoanalysis and in feminist texts. It should be concerning to anyone, men as well as women, that this idea is resurfacing in gender ideology — especially when we consider that children are quite literally being castrated in the service of this belief, both by means of powerful drugs euphemistically referred to as “puberty blockers,” as well as genital mutilation surgeries. The story of David Reimer is a tragic example of this. In 1966, Reimer, whose circumcision was botched as an infant, was experimented on by psychologist John Money, who decided it would be better to raise Reimer as a girl. Money believed that sex was socially constructed, a belief also promoted by current trans activists. Reimer’s case represents one of the earliest modern examples of what is called ‘sex reassignment surgery’, and John Money forced David to imitate sex acts with his brother Brian, instructing David to play the submissive, or ‘female’ role. Money justified these criminal acts by claiming that “childhood ‘sexual rehearsal play’” was important for a “healthy adult gender identity” (As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, John Colapinto). The sexual abuses inflicted on the twins by Money caused them such severe distress that both Brian and David committed suicide.

“There’s something that Andrea Long Chu writes a lot about… how we don’t get to choose what we desire, so there can be so much discomfort in engaging with things that we desire, whether that be in porn or otherwise. What you desire is what you are.” This is a pseudo-intellectual expression of the sentiment that “boys will be boys,” or that men are not accountable for their desires or actions. It’s a sentiment often used to rationalize predatory sexual behavior, one that gets trotted out to blame women who survive sexual abuse, and used in courts of law to avoid punishing men for sexual violence.

“I think a lot about coercion. If you look at a lot of sissy porn, a lot of it focuses around worshipping of the cock… it’s seen as the ultimate form of power. How the humiliation works is in talking about the size of a person’s cock, how small it is. The fantasy is about cis women getting to expose and subject men to the trappings of femininity as a form of punishment, humiliation, and dehumanization. I think talking about this within the world of feminism… is really exciting to think about.” The fantasy is about men being dehumanized through femininity. This explicitly demonstrates that femininity — as in, the socially constructed sex stereotypes imposed on women by force, by men — are designed to dehumanize women and girls. This is worth bearing in mind in any discussion of gender identity ideology. Harmful beauty products, purchased in the form of plastic surgery, breast implants, high heels, and excessive makeup are frequently purported to be expressions of selfhood. Additionally, Sofia mentions the humiliation of discussing relative size of a man’s genitalia. This is a recurring theme in forced feminization pornography. Statements are made in favor of ‘forcibly’ transitioning a man into a ‘woman’ due to the assumed inadequacy of his manhood. This can easily be juxtaposed with the previously stated idea that women are merely castrated, or failed, men. It is frightening how a lack of consent is doted upon as an intellectual exercise by all parties involved in the presentation, and by academics who share this view within queer theory, including the aforementioned Andrea Long Chu. The expressed desire for a lack of “agentiality”, a lack of consent, eroticizes aspects of sexual abuse and rape.

“In Andrea Long Chu’s essay, she’s saying that sissy porn can’t be queer because it’s about the heterosexual dynamic. My argument is that I don’t think she’s looking at forced womanhood and is looking at other ways that forced feminization is being depicted that don’t revolve around the cis cock being the infallible phallus, the unquestionable source of power.” Forced feminization pornography often eroticizes impotence through the use of contraptions called “chastity cages,” intended to prevent erections. Hormones are another avenue for inducing impotence; the consumption of estrogen by males can cause erectile dysfunction. However, it often still revolves around male genitalia, including the prostate orgasm. Notice that Sofia uses a qualifier when he says, “the cis cock”. Make no mistake, forced feminization pornography is just another iteration of the eroticization of male power in that it centers the male ego and desires, while reinforcing the reductive male projection of women as sex objects.

RL: “In her [Andrea Long Chu’s] essay on sissy porn — beyond the heterosexual framing — the way she puts it is to be trans is to be fucked, and to be fucked is not good in her scheme. I don’t see that as quite the same narrative in your work, but humiliation and punishment seem to be operating certainly in some way in both texts.” Sofia becomes frustrated, tosses aside the pornography magazine he had been admiringly referencing throughout, and shifts the focus away from critiques of societal themes by making himself the subject. RS: “[By] transitioning, I knew I was entering a more marginalized, more disempowered role in the world. There is also a desire inherent to that.” Sofia was given a platform by one of the most prestigious universities in the world to show pornography of himself and to espouse ideas that mock half the population — women — by associating women’s existence with acts of degradation and dehumanization for his own sexual arousal. RS: “Gender is coercive… but there is a lot of control that I’m exercising.” RL: “I do love in the structures of these photos how much it is about control, especially… the ones with genital torture.”

RS: “This is when I was getting more into the castration stuff, the desire around disempowerment… I’m thinking about divine ecstasy, the ecstasy that one can experience while in a lot of pain.” Sofia plays a video of himself taking on two roles (which he compares to a painting by Frida Kahlo, The Two Fridas, which depicts her agony following her divorce, in a stunning example of appropriation of female suffering), wherein he is being sexually tormented by his ‘other’ female-coded self. He is naked and bound, with a rope around his genitals, in a chair which has had its legs sawed down, forcing him to hold himself up on his toes to avoid castration. He presented this scene publicly, thereby being allowed to display sexual exhibitionism, which is a crime, and to be applauded for doing so. Once again, RL Goldberg returns to the topic of religion. This subject is used as a crutch throughout the presentation to lend validity and authority to what is explicitly the promotion of a BDSM lifestyle as a form of ‘gender identity’, but also speaks to the religious nature of gender ideology. Being unable to rely on science — indeed, being actively hostile towards science — gender ideology relies on the idea of a gendered soul, an innate identity, and reifies the power dynamics deliberately constructed within sex role stereotypes to dehumanize women.

(Continued in Part 3)

[ivysdigitalstory]

Working Women

In my family, there have always been amazing women. In my household, my mother worked full time, and my father was a stay at home dad. My dad proved to me that men are capable of being amazing caretakers, and anyone who thinks that women are just “born good caretakers” is straight up sexist. I’ve always had amazing women to look up to and learn from, and from an early age, my mom was in charge.

In society, women are often ranked as being less than men. However, those social norms didn’t occur to me because it wasn’t a part of my daily life growing up. My father, who’s a feminist, always showed me how powerful women are, and as true as it is I wasn’t prepared for the shock of finding out the rest of the world didn’t think that way. I think my womanhood has been affected by feeling free, something many women never experience in our society.

I think we teach many women today (and historically) to define womanhood through manhood. For example, in society women are seen as weak and they need men to save them because the idea is that “men are strong”. While in reality, women are strong enough to fend for themselves, with or without men. Women are taught to understand that they should understand themselves through someone else.

I think about womanhood through tarot cards: The Empress

The Empress is a card of “divine femininity” and “motherhood”. It’s about womanhood. What does it mean to be a woman? Obviously, women come in many forms and are all different from one another, and because of that womanhood can be defined as an individual experience. I think of the empress as being the essence of a woman. The queens of the tarot deck are the different types of women (more like an astrological distinction), but at the core, they’re all an empress in their own way. In many ways, the empress is the sum of all women. I think of the Empress being similar to Yemaya because the empress is eternal life through womanhood. However, the Empress is even closer to Oshun, as Oshun encompasses femininity as well as sexuality, fertility, beauty, motherhood, and destiny. All the extra parts that are implied when talking about The Empress.

As a society, we stigmatize women who are feminine or in touch with their sensuality, usually as being dumb or overly sexual. However, at the same time, we criticize women who are “too masculine” or too “uptight”, because they’re too prude.

Women are some of the strongest people I know. They have to fight an uphill battle a lot of the time because the odds are stacked against them. We dismiss women, we don’t listen to their stories. Often times they aren’t respected especially when compared with men. Women need to deal with constantly being underestimated. I’m always even more impressed for women of color, because they’re intersectionally marginalized, and their battles are that much more difficult.

In my life, I’ve learned to accept that other people will make judgments on me. No matter what kind of person I am, I’m aware that people will always make decisions about you based on what you look like, whether or not they’re well informed. I’ve been told in a work settings things like “you need to smile more” or “you need to get a better attitude” comments that I believe are made at the intersection of the fact that I’m a woman, and specifically a black woman. These comments are a way of treating me based on something other than my work, it’s also saying that I’m somehow required to be smiley, something that would NEVER be said to a man in my industry (which isn’t a service industry by the way). Why is it because I’m a woman that I deserve to be held to a different standard?

Both comments aren’t a critique of my effectiveness or work, but regardless they will both impact how I’m treated. I once read in a class about how black women are perceived as being more angry or attitudinal than white women, because of the racist trope that black people are more aggressive. To me, as someone that’s experienced that kind of marginalization, I know that in order to be a successful woman of color, I need to go out of my way to seem extra cheerful and extra sweet, as well as be amazing at my job.

To think that even with all this, women are able to be amazing people, they’re able to succeed and be so powerful. Women have to work harder for things than men because men are able to be the “default” for gender.