#i think ppl like saying lesbian because it sounds less binary gendered to them

[tyrannuspitch]

absolutely not directed at anyone in particular (esp since sooo many ppl do it), but. i am waiting impatiently for the day that we can acknowledge that women other than lesbians can be butch. like, in regular speech. not in "friendly reminders" but all the time. every time i hear the phrase "butch lesbian/transmasc solidarity" i'm like okay, sure, but you didn't specify the trans guy's orientation... so why do you have to specify the butch's

[redditreceipts]

I've been a very staunch supporter of trans ppl for years. I have learned to swallow my discomfort around some of the things said in those circles. When they said it was transphobic for lesbians to not like dick, I bit my tongue. I told myself, "this is just the loud minority" and to be fair I do think that is the minority but still ... as a lesbian I wasn't even able to talk about people who argued that because "it never happens. No one says that. That sounds like a transphobic lie." And I hate the constant assertions that gender is real, innate, and that everyone feels it. I can't describe my own experiences with growing up as a woman without someone telling me that maybe I'm nonbinary ... no thanks I tried that for a while. I respect everyone's gender, or I want to, but apparently doing that also requires me to put that oppressive structure onto myself and act like it's liberating.

The final snapping point for me was a trans woman telling me that I'm privileged for being a cis woman because I've never experienced dysphoria ... except I have. I grew up with intense thoughts about my body and hating my vagina and breasts. It was never that bad but I would often imagine mutilating. I'm in a better place now but I still feel some discomfort over my body sometimes. And when I expressed this to her, she asked me if I was really cis or was still questioning ...

They act like misogyny doesn't exist or something. I just ... I disagree with a lot of radical feminists beliefs or at least I think I do. But for years I have felt like radfems were the only ones even talking about misogyny anymore so idk

Anyway what I wanted to say is that I really like your posts and perspectives and thanks for this blog. I want to learn more and question more and your blog has become a helpful resource to help me start thinking critically about some things

Hey :) thanks for writing to me and sorry for the late answer. 

And yeah, you are totally right. I have also spent such a long time justifying gender ideology because I really wanted it to be right. I’ve excused so much weird behaviour with weird mental gymnastics because I didn’t want to accept that I had been wrong for such a long time. 

The entire “that never happens” thing - and then you show them an occasion where it happened, and they say “well, it doesn’t happen that much”. And yeah, people have suggested me being non-binary as well. I mean, by strict gender definitions I am non-binary because I don’t identify as a woman lmao. Just as the “you’re uncomfortable in your body?? what about fucking cutting it up??!!!!” thing. 

And for disagreeing with feminist beliefs, the thing is that being a feminist is not a package deal. You are not being some sort of heretic if you disagree with certain things, and I know that I am most probably wrong on a lot of stuff myself. If I wasn’t, I would be the first person who is always right in human history. And yes, even in feminist spaces, there is sometimes some sort of imperative to follow every single belief or you are not a “real feminist”. But being a feminist is not an identity, it is an action. It is an action towards yourself, in the workplace, in interaction with other women and men, in your consumption, in your voting, in how you support women in your personal life and how you do political action. So yeah, I would say that it is less important whether you follow every rule of the radical feminist catechism and more important to support women in your life (which includes yourself). At least, that’s my opinion. 

So if you want to learn more, you can look into literally anything Julie Bindel says on Youtube, I really like her perspective. And cool that you’re here! 

[lettucedloophole]

(Self-hating trans girl from the previous ask)

Thanks for responding! Could you clarify what "third-sexing" and "degendering" mean? Why is it inherently violent? For context (since I unintentionally made it sound like this was based on Janice Raymond's views), my view on the possibility of trans women being a third sex was mostly influenced by the article "A Rose is a Rose: The Nomenclature of Sex and Oppression" by Margaret Deirdre O'Hartigan (you can find it in issue 5 of the TransSisters journal on the Internet Archive: archive.org/details/transsistersjou1994unse_1). The article was originally published in 1980, a year after The Transsexual Empire was published, and the author responded to a lot of terf beliefs, but she argued that trans women should be a third sex instead of women (she used "changeling" as a new name for them).

The question of trans men being a fourth sex especially wasn't something I thought about. My instinctive response is no, that I don't think there's a problem with them using the label of "man" or using male spaces, but I don't know why I think this about trans men but not trans women. The terf response to something like this would usually be "because trans women are male (and therefore dangerous)", but honestly this neglects the fact that, even if they were both classified under the same name, trans women just aren't the same group as cis men and aren't treated the same (which was also the basis of them being a third sex in the first place). I guess it just feels wrong in a way that I can't explain, so it probably has a lot more to do with internalized transphobia/transmisogyny than any reasoned argument.

Anyways thank you for explaining your view on this, it helped me change my mind. I got into terf beliefs in like 2022/2023 and it's been a gradual process of trying to unlearn. I don't hate trans people, and I love and care about trans women, but lots of terf ideas can feel almost inarguable in spite of that. I got as far as non-essentialism, but it wasn't really clear to me how that leads to a pro-trans position so I was just stuck there for a while. The article I mentioned earlier about trans women being a third sex was basically the only pro-trans explanation from that standpoint that made sense to me.

of course! third-sexing (as i was using it) is just the act of deeming trans women a third sex instead of women, and degendering is stripping someone of gender and usually entails dehumanization as a result. it can simply refer to instances where trans women are they/them'd, for example, but the sense in which i use it and have mostly seen it used (on socmed, admittedly, though there's academic writings on this definition too) is something more like how black women are seen as lesser women to the extent that they would be grouped in with men and face violence or just not grouped in with other women. and since humanity is intertwined with gender, the degendered person is seen as less human as a result. it's not a term exclusive to black women though, arguably all woc are degendered (particularly brown/black/darkskinned women), intersex women, lesbians and trans women. women who have traits that are considered masculine.

why degendering is violent is more apparent with the way i described it, and i would say third-sexing is a form of degendering and that's part of why it's violent. since the two gender system is normal, denying trans women's womanhood is a denial of their normalcy. this argument isn't sufficient though as some ppl (nonbinary ppl like myself) declare a denial of the binary and thus, normalcy, but this doesn't mean they desire marginalization. so being acknowledged as outside of the gender binary is not always violent, but third-sexing in particular is.

as to why third-sexing is inherently violent, i touched on this in my last response but i think the world shows evidence of this. i have no theoretical basis for why i think this, just the practical basis that third sex groups in diff cultures (like hijra or fa'afafine) are marginalized and many identify themselves as women, but in spite of this are said to be a third sex by onlookers. a denial of womanhood so often means violence for trans women. in this precarious situation, it seems counterintuitive to suggest a roundabout solution when the solution has already been recommended from the majority of those people, yk? i know that sounds flimsy, but i hope i can expand upon my feelings by sharing more about third-sexing.

a possible counterargument here is, what about nonbinary people? if trans women are marginalized by being forced out of the gender/sex binary, wouldn't nonbinary people also be? and so, rather than arguing that trans women are women, wouldn't it be better to just dismantle the gender binary as a whole? and in the long term, yes. but being recognized as women keeps trans women safe now. nonbinary people being outside of the gender binary is just an additional layer of marginalization they have to deal with for the sake of their authentic identity. and i don't mean to pose trans women and nb people as mutually exclusive groups, ofc trans women can also be nonbinary but i think i would have to say a lot more words to try and qualify what i mean to not give off that impression temporarily. lmao.

i'm retreading here, but i think it's important to hone in on the fact that self identification of gender in trans people helps destroy the myth of an innate gender & sex. this is lost if trans women are seen as a third sex, considered too marked by maleness to be women. the idea of being endlessly marked by maleness is itself bioessentialistic and leaves no hope for women to ever be free of oppression, if male violence goes beyond the social. and ultimately, i suppose i just don't think there's much of an argument for trans women to be a third sex instead of women beyond discomfort, especially if you don't feel the same about trans men. trans men are more often perceived as just women or men i think, and there's less contention about them being taken as either of those groups than trans women being taken in as women. i see the trans women i know as women, and the world knows this too, though they claim otherwise.

about that transsisters article, i read it and i sympathize with it, but it does seem a little outdated. for example, it uses "h*rmaphrodites" to refer to intersex people, and the publication even acknowledges this lapse in terminology. referring to people on the fringes of sex as "changelings" is romantic, and i appreciate the way she justifies it in terms of magic keeping a group alive, but practically i do think it's a bit othering and implies impersonation. no hate to her for using it for herself, she can reclaim that language if she wants. i found she also identified as an "archigalli," chief priestess of the gallae (transsexual roman priestesses) she discussed in the piece after "a rose is a rose." i think this identification shows she may have romanticized the third sex role without having experienced the full brunt of its effects, as most third sex groups are in colonized societies afaik. i would recommend this piece on hijra and third-sexing to get some insight into their oppression and problem with third sex roles.

margaret deirdre o'hartigan identifies as a transsexual woman now, i think, based on this interview with the university of minnesota. she still has some comparatively conservative views about transsexual people for a trans activist, like reservations about lia thomas. i had these same reservations when i was a terf, but knowledge is power, and looking up things showed me it's merely an issue of transmisogynistic discomfort rather than any genuine wrongdoing on lia thomas' part. i think it's important to remember that, and to skeptically look into conservative rhetoric about trans people. you can still have reservations about some things, like the rare misogynistic trans woman, without forsaking faith in yourself and trans women as a whole. a shitty trans person doesn't have to act as confirmation of anything about yourself or others.

and truly its my pleasure! i made this account in the hopes of offering another (radical feminist) perspective so i'm happy it's serving its purpose. i got into terf beliefs before you did but it seems like they haven't evolved much at all. you're getting out pretty recently so do give yourself grace as you unlearn these things. i didn't mean to insinuate that you hated trans people, i sure didn't, some of it is just internalized transphobia and then there's just a shit load of propaganda working against us. just center your love of other trans people and women and you will be okay 💙

im very glad i could help, but my asks and messages are always open if you need anything else. happy deprogramming! 🎉

[vampireqrow-moved]

um its my birthday so wait until 12:01am pst to block me if u hate this post 🥰🥰

long story short the pansexual label is redudant and actively harmful (its far from the worst problem bisexuals face but it is one issue) and i dont hate anyone who identifies as pan because A) those ppl are bi like me and B) i used to identify as pan myself.

if thats enough for you to block me and make a callout post for me then i cant stop you but pretty please either read this whole thing or just wait a few minutes for my bday to end 🥰🥰

anyways im kicking off this point with some personal experiences bc i love to talk to myself. i got introduced to the pan label at maybe 10ish years old, and started identifying with it pretty much right away. i heard about it before bisexual and it was pitched as attraction to all genders and of course trans people. i was of course a trans ally! i had trans friends! i was trans also but hadnt figured it out yet! the way i had heard of it, there was no bisexual, there was no need for bisexual, and identifying differently was excluding trans people, which I was certainly against. being bisexual was trans exclusionary and why would i exclude trans people? the 'hearts not parts' slogan was thriving around this time and i genuinely said it and meant it.

as i started to become more online, mostly through roleplaying websites and tumblr here, i started hearing of bisexuality. it was supposedly an older term, so older people still used it, but it was common knowledge that pansexual was the better, inclusive label and younger people should adopt the new inclusive language instead of the old and transphobic words like bisexual. /s

and then bi and pan solidarity was all the rage! pansexual wasnt erasing bisexuality, why did anyone ever think that? bi and pan were two separate and complete identities that were valid and had to be respected or youre a mean exclusionist. and an asexual person, hearing people labelled exclusionist always meant they were excluding people from the lgbta community who rightfully belonged, denying peoples lived experiences, and generally telling people theyre wrong about their sexuality because theyre too young. and all of those things were bad and had hurt me, so it would be ridiculous to change labels and support "pan exclusionists" because they were just as bad as ace and aro exclusionists, and they were all the same people. or so it seemed to me at that time.

then, 'hearts not parts' began getting called out for blatant transphobic by insinuating that pansexual was the only identity that loved people for their "hearts" and personalities instead of those gross gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even straights who only saw people for their "parts". (STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE NOT OPPRESSED. I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT PANSEXUALITY WAS SHOWN AS ABOVE ALL OTHERS.) many pan people, including myself, began to denounce the slogan and insist pansexuality wasnt transphobic, there had just been a coincidence that a transphobic slogan was everywhere and a huge part of people's explantions of and associations with pansexuality. hint: it wasnt a coincidence.

from my perspective, this is when i began to see people discussing dropping the word pansexual. that seemed to be a huge step from getting rid off a transphobic slogan, and these people were just meanies who hated microlabels. and i like microlabels! as a genderfluid person, and someone who has friends who use specific aro and acespec labels, ive seen how people can use them to name specific experiences while still acknowleging their presence underneath umbrella terms like aromantic, asexual, nonbinary, lgbta, and for some people, queer.

pansexuals dont do that. they dont label pansexuality as a specific set of experiences under the bisexual umbrella, they see themselves as a separate identity, and even if they started to, the history of biphobia and transphobic undeniably linked to the existence of pansexuality in enough to stop being worth using. but i digress. pansexualitys shiny new definition that many people cling to is that pansexual is attraction to all genders. bisexual is two or more genders.

which. frankly? doesnt make any sense. my guess is that its supposed to be inclusive of nonbinary genders and those a part of cultures who historically have not had a binary gender system in the first place. i cannot speak for the latter group, but as a nonbinary person, its not inclusive. anyone can be attracted to nonbinary people. literally anyone. theres no way to know if everyone you meet is nonbinary or not. whether or not a nonbinary person reciprocates those feelings and is interested in pursuing a relationship is completely up to the individual, regardless of the sexualities of the people involved.

bottom line is that you cant number the amounts of genders someone can be attracted to, thus rendering those definitions pointless. people can be attracted to all kinds of people regardless of gender, even if they are gay, a lesbian, or straight. all people can date thousands of nonbinary genders if all people involved are interested and comfortable with it. numbering the genders you can be attracted to diminishes the post of nonbinary, as it is not a third gender, it simply any experience not fitting within the western concept of the gender binary (if the person so chooses to identify as such. if you cant tell already, the nonbinary experience is varied between every single nonbinary person.) important to note also that no widely accepted bisexual text defines bisexual as attracted to exclusively two genders or even the "two or more genders". i know this is used a lot but please read the bisexual manifesto. its free online i promise.

some people also claim pansexuals experience "genderblind" attraction while bisexuals feel differently attracted to different genders. this is very nitpicky for whats supposed to be two unconnected idenities, but thats only part of the problem. this definition is also not in any widely accepted bisexual texts, and bisexuality has never excluded those who experience genderblind attraction. i am in fact a bi person who experiences genderblind attraction. this does not mean i am not bisexual. it simply means i experience bisexuality differently than other bisexuals, and thats wonderful! no broad communities like bisexuality are expected to all share the same experience. we are all so different and its amazing were able to come together under the bisexual flag.

last definition, or justification i should say, is that yes these definitions are redundant and theyre the same sexuality, but people prefer different labels and thats okay. i agree in principle. people can define themselves as many things like homosexuals or gays or lesbians or queers or even other reclaimed slurs, while still not labelling themselves under the most "common" or "accurate" labels.

but pansexuality isnt the same as bisexuality, which may sound silly but hear me out. it has been continually used as a way to further divide bisexuals, who are already subject to large amounts of lgbta discrimination. "pansexuality was started by trans people who were upset with transphobia within the bisexual community! it cant be transphobic OR biphobic!" except of course that it can and it is. to say that trans people cant be transphobic is absurd. transmedicalism is right there, but thats not what im getting at. all minorities can have internal and sometimes external biases against people who are the same minority as them.

pansexuality was started as a way to be trans inclusive at the expense of labelling bisexuality as transphobic when its not. transphobia is everywhere, and bisexuals are not exempt. instead of working on the transphobia within the community, the creators of pansexuality decided to remove themselves from it to create a better and less tainted word and community, and the fact that pansexuality is intended to replace bisexuality or leave it for the transphobes goes to show a few things. pansexuality and bisexuality are inherently linked because the pan label is in response to the bi label. due to its origins, it is inherently competing with bisexuality and it cant be "reclaimed" from its biphobic roots. pansexuality is not a whole, separate, and valid label. its a biphobic response to issues within the bisexual community.

to top off this post, heres something a full grown adult once said to me. in person. she was my roommate. "i feel like im pan because im attracted to trans people. trans women, trans men, i could definitely date them. but not nonbinary people because thats gross and weird." she saw pan as trans inclusive and defined herself that way as opposed to bi which is shitty!

also a little extra tidbit about my experiences identifying as pan. i saw myself as better than every bi person. all of them. even my trans and bi friends. whenever they brought up being bisexual i would think to myself "why dont you identify as pansexual? its better and shows people you support trans people." because i was made to believe bisexuality didnt and was therefore inferior. thats the mindset that emerged from my time in the pansexual community. i am so sorry to all of my bisexual friends even if they never noticed. i love you all and hope you have a great day. this also goes to any bisexuals or people who identify as bi in anyway, such as biromantic or simply bi. love you all.

ummm yeah heres some extra reading i found helpful and relevant. here and here. also noooo dont disagree with me and unfollow me im so sexy 🥴🥴🥴