#intersex people deserve respect and more people should be educated about them

[lil-lycanthropy]

Point about the above:

Only 14 countries have a population above 100 million. Out of that, 8 countries have more than 150 million.

The population of intersex people is not more than the population of just some countries; the intersex population of about 156 million is more than the vast majority of countries. By a lot.

"But only 2% of the population is intersex. It's not that common. Why should we reframe or perception of gender for intersex people?"

Completely ignoring the fact that empathy exists. You do realize that 2% of the population in the medical field is considered very common, yes?

2% of children and 0.5% of adults have a peanut allergy and that's so common that they have entire rules around in in public spaces.

0.24-1% of the population has Rheumatoid arthritis. That's an eighth to a half of the number of intersex people!

1-2% of people are estimated to have autism, and that's considered a common condition.

0.1%-2.6% of people will get melanoma in their life time, and that's considered common.

1.2% of people have epilepsy and that's considered common.

Completely ignoring statistics like 6% of women have PCOS (which is a condition that can fall under the intersex umbrella). 2% of the population in the medical field is considered a common condition, and ergo by medical terms intersex is in itself common.

I don't think you realize how big 2% is. That's 2 in 100 people. If you walk into 3 fully filled classrooms (when I was in school a full classroom was 40 students). Chances are you just saw 2 intersex kids and didn't even know it.

So yeah. I think intersex is common enough to include in our discussions around gender and how transphobic rules affects intersex people.

-fae

[gwemmieee]

I've just figured out some big things, and... yeah. It's not fair or sensitive to hold everyone to the exact same standard. Some of us have suffered a lot more than others, and the more you have suffered, the more you deserve grace when you're so exhausted that you slip up in your overwhelming and obsessive effort to be good to everyone.

I love giving space to anyone who's being honest about the ways they've been hurt. But once they've personally hurt me, or if the systemic issues they're describing have an even greater effect on me, I should not be held to as high a standard of perfection in how I speak and express my feelings. I should just be heard. Failing to treat me this way... I think that is the true definition of one-upping another's trauma.

From now on, I'm gonna be wary around masculine people who specifically only want to talk about their pain without giving me any space for mine as a very feminine woman. And similarly for cis people as a trans person. And wealthy people as a poor person. And neurotypical people as a neurodivergent person. And abled people as a disabled person. And parented people as an emotional orphan. And etc.

And from now on, if someone who is intersex, or BIPOC, or not white passing, or homeless, or less non-mad-passing than me, or more disabled than me, etc., is wary of me specifically because I unnecessarily forced them to have to silently process their own oppression just to be able to hear me, I'm gonna understand and respect that. It's so obvious to me now. Their oppression is not my fault, personally, but that doesn't mean they don't have completely valid reasons to find my presence actively exhausting. I'm not gonna be able to make that go away. I can either be sensitive to that or miss out on maximizing what connection with them I actually have access to.

And that doesn't mean I have to always turn the other cheek when someone is being just plain nasty to me, because I don't have to throw myself under the bus to be sensitive, and being sensitive doesn't mean I don't have my own limits.

We're honestly lucky to have all these academic and grassroots social justice discussions just a web search away. It's usually so fucking hard to ever know for sure whether another person has had it so hard that it's a struggle to be any better, or is just presenting that way to manipulate you. It's still really hard now. But our modern education and dissemination of marginalized groups' collective experiences shines a huge light on so much of it, and that gives us so much more opportunity to REALLY connect with folks from very different perspectives.

This feels like real feminism to me.

[kael-writ]

I dont even wanna hear about this "parent's rights" conservative propaganda bullshit because you know who really needs rights?

CHILDREN.

Children's rights.

Children need the right to be free of abuse and neglect. And there are already way too few protections for kids in that regard.

Children who are being abused, neglected, or just generally badly treated deserve more right and ability to choose to not live in a home that is not safe for them and/or miserable for them. It should be a lot easier and more accessible to let kids ask to go to a better home.

And those homes should be made better- no parents should be impoverished, all parents should have access to resources like childcare and parenting education. All schools should be safe, well funded, wonderful places. As should all of foster care. Every environment a child lives in should be safe, clean, well funded, places of peace and joy. All children have a right to a safe and nurturing environment.

Children are NOT property. They are people. Their own person, fully entitled to full control of their own mind, body, and life, even within reasonable age appropriate boundaries of caring for their needs and safety.

Kids need and deserve respect, full respect as full human beings, they need and deserve as much freedom and autonomy as they can be afforded.

Kids deserve privacy (when it is age appropriate and safe).

Kids need and deserve the right to say no. To learn they have a right to consent or to say no, to control and protect their own bodies. That it's not ok for anyone to hit them, or even to force them to hug them, that their body belongs only to them.

To know it is ok to say no, also, to the commands of authority. To stand up for themselves and for others. There may be consequences for refusing to do what a parent or teacher asks, there may be times when you need to trust someone who is trying to keep you safe, but you are not a robot, you are a person who gets to have your own voice.

Kids need to be free from being taught any self hate, any hate of others, shame and blame. They deserve self love and self care. They deserve to learn to love their fellow human beings equally, too.

Kids deserve knowledge. They deserve to be allowed to read books, to ask questions and get honest answers. To be integrated into society, to meet different people, to learn from different people, to play with different kids, not to just be sheltered and locked away by some parent's cult.

Kids deserve to be themselves. That includes if that kid is queer in any way! That also includes anything else like if they question their parent's politics or religion. They have a right to their own mind.

Kids deserve to not have their bodies altered in infancy or at puberty against their will if they are intersex or even males getting circumcised or female FGM.

In the same way, they deserve the option to take puberty blockers and decide if they're ready to go through a puberty they dont think they want, not to be forced into an unwanted puberty.

They certainly should not be forced to be pregnant against their will and best interest (!).

They deserve to take a vaccine if they want to, or a blood transfusion or whatever else doctors recommend even if it isnt part of their parent's religion.

They deserve, within reason, to decide what they dont want to eat and not be forcefed, to be vegetarian for example.

They deserve to not be forced into their parent's religion.

They deserve to have some choice and control over their hair and their clothes and their hobbies.

I could go on. There are so many things that kids need and deserve and don't get. If you are reading this, perhaps you can add to the list.

I know there are children's bills of rights that include important things I take for granted like not living a life in a war zone, in imprisonment, treated as an "illegal" human being, child labor, trafficking, child soldiers, the horrors that are hard to think of but do effect real kids. That deserves a lot more attention and thought.

There truly does need to be an actual children's rights movement, a serious advancement in children's rights, and we don't talk about that enough.

Im a lot more interested in the rights of a child to be liberated than any "right" a parent claims to restrain that liberation. (eta And Im not talking about taking away protective guardianship that is necessary, obviously, like protecting kids from actual groomers, not gay teachers but people who actually are trying to hurt them /eta).

Every day, I strive to support the human rights of children, in and of themselves, as their own individual people with their own lives who deserve the best possible liberated future for themselves.

[thedeadflag]

I’m so confused! I know it’s not your responsibility to educate me but in your post bringing awareness to the negative aspects of g!p fanfic you say

“Why do these g!p characters rarely if ever involve experiences reflective of trans/intersex women? Why are they so utterly cis and perisex-washed? Why do nearly all writers have zero idea that tucking is a thing? “

Doesn’t that answer your original question? The reason they don’t reflect those groups of ppl is bc g!p isn’t trying to represent those groups of people or else it WOULD be transphobic to limit them to one specific fetish right? it just refers to a canonically female character with the addition of a penis (I don’t argue the name “g!p” should be changed bc that’s a no brainer why that could be offensive). But the fanfic in general, how could it be harmful? I’ve noticed in my time reading it as a non binary person it’s given me great gender euphoria reading a reader insert where reader has a penis while being a femme representing person just bc that’s a reflection of my personal experience. I don’t see anywhere where g!p fanfic ever references or tries to emulate the experiences of trans or intersex people so how could it be offensive?

Sorry this is way too long I’m just very confused

I'm going to try and lay this out as politely as I can. It's after 3:30 in the morning here, so this could be a bit disjointed and rambling. More under the cut:

In real life, ~99.999999% of women with penises are trans women. Which puts us in a tricky situation of (A) being the only women with penises around for media involving women with penises to reflect back on, and (B) being in the lovely position of precious few people actually having had meaningful real life exposure to trans women, meaning (C.) all those stigmas and all that misinformation are going to purely affect us and it’s going to be uncritically gobbled up by the masses, since they don’t have any meaningful information to fill in the blanks with instead.

When we peer into the depths of femslash fandoms and see all these folks who aren't trans women writing about women with penises, and using cis women’s bodies as platforms for these penises, it’s the simplest thing.

I mean, some of those folks might actually be struggling and confused about why they’re into it, what the real appeal is, why they get off on it, why they might have some feelings about wanting a penis of their own…

…but from our vantage point, it’s really easy to gauge 99.99% of the time. We can generally see valid, legitimate yearning to have a penis pretty damn easily in a piece of art/writing, and we can also see when people who create this media are just hung up on a boatload of baggage and fetishization.

And 99.9% of the time, the creators are just hung up on a boatload of baggage and fetishization, and see trans women’s bodies as a perfect vehicle to tap into that, generally due to deeply held cissexist views that link us and our bodies and genitals directly to cis men, to maleness. As if penises are rooted in maleness and masculinity (which is absolutely not true).

And I have sympathy for NB folks (certainly TME ones who have reached out to me in the past about this) who might be struggling with that, but just because they’re non-binary, it doesn’t mean they get to appropriate our bodies and reproduce transmisogyny and trans fetishization in their attempts at feeling better. Shit doesn't work like that.

Because again, the only women with penises in this world, essentially, are trans women. Meaning any woman with a penis in media is a trans woman, implicitly or explicitly. Meaning that when people who aren’t us want to write us, intent doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter if it’s just the writer’s fantasy, it’s still going to attach a variety of messages directly onto us.

And more often than not, due to cissexism, those messages are linking us to maleness, to toxic masculinity, etc..

While I do want to believe they're a fairly small minority, a lot of NB folks in fandom spaces like g!p characters in part because they see penises as male and the rest of the body as female and think that duality is interesting and would be comfortable, and is a nice balance of “both worlds” or a nice position “between male and female”, but that’s a wholly cissexist, transmisogynistic view to have, and it’s one that absolutely cannot be supported without directing sexual violence against trans women and invalidating our entire existence. Certainly not all NB folks into g!p like it for that reason, but holy shit a fair bit of them do and it’s weird and wrong and fetishistic.

g!p emerged from the idea that women can't have penises, and drew on the transmisogyny and cissexism of tr*nny porn to structure that frame of desire and the core patterns and trends within these works. It's always been trans women's bodies being used as a vehicle, whether or not the writers of these fics are explicitly aware of it, because the trope itself still holds true to its original patterns and cissexism. It's not the name that's the problem, it's the content; changing the name would be a surface level change that wouldn't affect anything.

g!p objectifies women with penises (trans women). A woman with a penis is more than just a woman with a penis, but the use of the term and trope is literally to (A) remind people that women don't have penises, otherwise the g!p term wouldn't be needed if people actually accepted women with penises as women, and that (B) this is a story centered on a scenario where there's a woman with a penis, with key focus on that genitalia specifically. it's the drawing point, it's the lure, it's what everything is centered on. It is a means for folks to write lesbian sex while also writing about penis in vagina and getting off to it. It's also no surprise that the penises so clearly emulate cis men's penises in these works, that is by design.

As I’ve said many times before, if you’re only writing trans women’s bodies to showcase cis men’s penises, you’re not respecting the womanhood of trans women, and this ultimately has nothing inherent to do with penis-owning women, it has to do with (cis) men and their penises, because trans women are just being used as a vehicle to emulate them. When NB folks do the same thing, and imagining themselves as those g!p characters, they are ultimately embodying cis men, their maleness, and often toxic masculinity, in a way that feels safe and distanced enough for them, a shell that they often code as cisnormative due to their own unprocessed cissexism.

And trans women don’t deserve that.

You seem caught in the idea that if something doesn't directly perfectly reflect trans women, that it can't be linked to us., which ignores the long long history of media being used to misrepresent marginalized peoples and cast us in insulting, dehumanizing lights. You show a lack of understanding of the g!p trope and the long history of its usage across a few other names, even if the content and patterns remained the same. It shows a lack of understanding of tr*nny porn and transmisogynistic stigmas, which the trope draws heavily from.

I think we can all recognize that most 'lesbian' prn that's made does not represent actual lesbians, it's overwhelmingly catered to the male gaze. We can also recognize that this category of porn has led to a lot of harassment towards lesbians from cis men who at the very least want to believe lesbians are just like they are in the porn he watches, that lesbians just need the right man. Lesbians are being used as a vehicle for a fantasy that was created externally to them, and doesn't represent their realities.

It's the same kind of situation here. The way g!p fics play out overwhelmingly doesn't reflect trans women's realities, but they are inherently linked to us regardless, as we're the vehicles for those fantasies, as unrealistic and harmful as they may be.

g!p characters are built in our fetishized image that’s based on a deeply cissexist misunderstanding of us, of the gender binary, and of bodies in general.

I mean, when 99% of cis folks don’t understand how trans women tend to be sexually intimate… when they don’t understand what dysphoria is and how it works and how it can affect us physically and emotionally…when they don’t understand almost any of our lived experiences…then they’re not going to be able to accurately portray us even if they wanted to.

And I’ve read enough g!p fics where authors wrote those as a means of trying to add trans rep, but because they didn’t understand us at all, it wasn’t remotely representative, and it was ultimately fetishistic, even if there was an undercurrent of sympathy and a lack of following certain common g!p patterns there that differentiated it from the norm.

If g!p fics were at all about reducing dysphoria or finding euphoria, then it wouldn’t be explicitly tied up in the performance of very specific sex acts, very specific forms of misogyny and toxic masculinity, very specific forms of sexual violence and exertion of sexual power, etc.

But it is.

So the notion that creating g!p fics helps NB folks? Nope. It CAN certainly prevent/delay those folks from facing a whole boatload of shit they’ve internalized, and coddle them at the expense of trans women.

Because if it was really about bodies and dysphoria/euphoria, there would be a considerable push (allying with out own) to end our fetishization and to represent us in and out of sexual contexts with accuracy, respect, and care. Because they wouldn’t care what sex acts were performed and what smut beats were hit, they’d just want to see someone with a body like their ideal being loved, being sexual, connecting, being authentic, etc. Which very much is not the case in the overwhelming majority of g!p fics. That's what we want, and it's not what g!p writers want, it's nothing they give a shit about.

Like, a ways back I started doing random pulls of g!p fics from various fandoms and assessing them for certain elements to provide some quantitative clarity. I started on The 100 here, and did OuaT here. Never finished the 100 one since the results leveled out and stayed pretty consistent as the sample size grew, so I didn't really see the point in continuing any further after about 140 fics when the data wasn't really changing much at all.

Lastly, media influences people. I've read countless posts and comments from people who use fanfiction as a sex ed guide, in essence. Which is ridiculous, but I also know sex ed curricula often isn't very accurate or extensive in a lot of areas, so people take what they can get. Representation in media can be powerful, and when it overwhelmingly misrepresents people, that's also powerful. Just because fandom is a bit smaller than televised media, it doesn't make that impact any lesser, certainly not for those whose primary media intake is within fandom.

Virtually all trans representation in f/f fanfiction is misrepresentative of us. That has a cost in how people understand us, how people react to us, and how people treat us. Not just online, but in physical spaces, and in intimate settings.

I invite you to read that post you referenced again, or perhaps this longer one which is a response to a trans guy who seemed to feel something similar to you with this trope.

All I can do is lay it out there and try to explain this. It's up to you how you handle this. All I know is whenever there's a big surge in g!p in a fandom, trans women generally leave it en masse, because it's a very clear and consistent message that we're not valued, respected, and that people value getting off on us over finding community with us.

[howlingrose]

Like, we all know patriarchy is a thing and that it is an oppressive system. But even if it is called patriarchy, it doesn't mean that people who identify as men or people that were AMAB and socialized as such didn't suffer from it just like the rest of us.

Patriarchy is a system that has power due to the binary division of the world, it reinforces and promotes social norms and behaviours that stick to very defined gender roles and gives privileges to those who fit in the category they define as "male" as long as they perform as expected regarding sexuality, identity and presentation.

And that is fucked up!!

How painful must it be to feel like you have to chop off or hide bits of yourself to fit into that if you don't want to lose the conditional privileges you have, that shouldn't be privileges but rights for everyone, while witnessing that other people around you suffer for not being able or for choosing not to fit.

Thinking that it only affects women or AFAB people is cruel and only reinforces the binary division that that system is actively trying to perpetuate. It denies the right of self identification of trans AMAB and AFAB people by still encasing, seeing and treating them as something they are not.

That is why whenever I see an event labeled as "for women and NB people" I don't trust it as a safe space or a place where my identity is going to be taken seriously or respected. I think that any event that is welcoming to minorities and has any desire of creating community, promoting education or encourages activism related in any way to gender, should not exclude men.

Because feminine men, trans men, male presenting NB people, closeted trans people, AFAB people that either don't want to or can't pass as female, intersex people, agender people, genderfluid people, not hypermasculine men and cis men who are just as disgusted by what patriarchy is and does to them and to others can easily be excluded from those events by labels like those.

(sorry if due to my limited experience and perception of the world I'm missing more identities and realities that might also feel excluded in those cases, if you read this let me know about your experiences)

And all of them are crucial to the shared goal of creating a fairer, more inclusive and freely diverse world we all want and deserve.

So, yeah. "Women and non-binary" stinks to terf shit to me, as if they were trying to appeal and convert what they see as "women who identify as non binary" back into "womanhood" by excluding and attacking what they erroneously and small minded-ly understand as men.

Hope you enjoyed my ranting.

*says while waiting to save enough money to finally chop off their tits and realizes (again) that once we physically transition we get to experience a whole new wave of hate by resembling what terfs and gender purists understand as male*

Yeeeeey! Fuck

NB 👏 Does 👏 Not 👏 Mean 👏 Woman 👏 Lite

[longgae]

Feeling like debating with relatives/other weird people? Here is a list of controversial topics to discuss (and what to say) :)

Made because I am very tired andddd I had coffee today.

Gun Control - Gun violence has been a heated debate topic in the U.S. for years. Mass shootings and other acts of gun violence kill nearly 40,000 people every year in the U.S. The gun control debate largely hinges on interpretations of the Second Amendment. It reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Advocates for gun rights argue the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" means that the government cannot control the possession of firearms. Thus, they oppose any laws that impact their ability to buy, carry, or accessorize guns. By contrast, gun control advocates focus on the part of the Second Amendment that says gun rights are meant to be "well regulated" by local, state, and federal legislative bodies. They push for stricter gun control laws, including more extensive background checks, regulations on assault weapons, and banning high-capacity magazines. Today, the debate has escalated due to the high rate of gun violence and the rising frequency of mass shootings. In 2019, there were 417 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA). The increasing prevalence of mass shootings has sparked fierce debates about the sale of assault rifles, background checks for gun buyers, and the connection between gun violence and mental illness.

Abortion - The pro-life perspective argues that life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore abortion is equivalent to murder. It is seen as an act of violence that can have physical, emotional, and psychological repercussions, even if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Pro-life supporters believe that government intervention to prevent abortions is justified. On the other side, pro-choice argues that people have the right to choose to have an abortion because they have bodily autonomy — complete control over their own bodies. They believe that it is immoral for the government to make medical decisions on behalf of pregnant people. Thus, the pro-choice perspective opposes federal, state, or local laws that restrict access, impede funding, or create legal obstacles for getting an abortion.

Religious Freedom - Religious freedom is considered a fundamental human right for every American. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yet, religious liberty continues to be controversial in its execution. Discussions about religion and politics are often polarizing because they dig deep into how people view the world. As the adage says, "don't mix religion and politics." The First Amendment compels the government not to show preference to a specific religion or take away an individual's ability to exercise faith. It also ensures that neither the state nor the church has the power to rule over each other. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to practice any faith or to have no faith. Legally, they can do so without fear of government coercion, even in public. In practice, the fiery disagreements over how freedom of religion can and should be expressed have led to clashes over God's mention in the Pledge of Allegiance, displaying the Ten Commandments in public spaces, and businesses denying service based on religious belief. The issue is particularly prevalent around Christianity, which appears in many aspects of public life in the United States, despite not being the official religion. Many people with pro-religious views argue that religious freedom means they have a right to make choices about who they serve or employ and what they display or do based on their religious values. Others argue that religious freedom means not having to follow the trappings of a specific religion in public spaces or required pledges, and also not being denied access to goods, services, or jobs based on their religious beliefs.

Vaccines - Vaccines have revolutionized global health with life-saving immunity from certain diseases. Polio, smallpox, tetanus, and other infectious diseases are no longer deadly because of innovative vaccines. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), vaccines prevent thousands of Americans from getting infected by diseases each year. Immunization is the best protection against these diseases, especially for children with weak immune systems. They may also help bring the COVID-19 pandemic to a speedier end. But there has been some opposition to vaccines in recent years. The push back against vaccines comes for different reasons, including fear, misconceptions, and mistrust of science. Anti-vaccine activists are often referred to as anti-vaxxers. Some of the most persistent arguments against vaccines include a widespread fear that vaccines cause autism, that natural immunity is better than being inoculated, and that vaccines contain harmful chemicals. Over the years, public health officials, physicians, and medical experts have debunked these claims. Despite that, anti-vaxxers still argue that vaccines can be dangerous and contain hazardous or poorly-researched substances, creating risks that outweigh the benefits. Meanwhile, vaccine supporters believe all parents have a responsibility to comply with medical advice on vaccine administration, protecting their children and strengthening herd immunity for society as a whole.

Marriage Equality - In 2015, the Marriage Equality Act made same-sex marriage legal everywhere in the United States and was later upheld by the Supreme Court. Even so, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) [YASSS QUEENS] individuals to marry still lead to heated debates, especially within religious communities. Those who support marriage equality believe gender and sexual orientation should not affect access to rights under the law, including marriage rights. They believe all couples deserve access to the same recognition, legal rights, and tax benefits. Opponents of marriage equality argue that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and allowing any other type of union undermines the institution of marriage and should thus be sanctioned by law. Most opponents of marriage equality have a faith-based viewpoint, arguing that non-heterosexual romantic relationships contradict teachings in the Bible, making them sinful in the eyes of God. They believe the government is obligated to prevent these marriages, triggering further debate about the separation of church and state. While marriage equality is the law in the United States, the debate over LGBTQ+ access to equal treatment continues.

The Trump "Presidency" - Donald Trump's presidency has been a constant source of controversy. His abrasive leadership style, tone, and methods in office are dramatically different from his predecessors, drawing an unprecedented level of ire from citizens who oppose him. He was impeached in 2019 after he pressured Ukraine to smear then-Democratic-presidential-hopeful Joe Biden. As of July 2020, President Trump had made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims. This included falsehoods about the coronavirus pandemic, fringe conspiracy theories, his impeachment trial, and protests over the death of George Floyd. He's also clashed with world leaders, openly supported white supremacists, and ignored evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Those who support President Trump claim the media misrepresents him — despite evidence to the contrary — or deny his past statements. Trump supporters embrace his policies, which include more substantial immigration restrictions, protections for the Second Amendment, and nationalist identity politics. They also view the president as a political outsider whose unconventional style and behavior are a needed disruption of traditional politics. Trump's opponents have fiercely criticized him for mishandling the coronavirus pandemic, race relations, and constitutional law. His opponents also view his presidency as a dangerous deviation from normative American values about executive authority, democratic rule, and general political civility. Trump's opponents advocate for progressive policies that clash with his conservative viewpoints, including humane immigration reform, enhanced environmental protections, and stricter gun control laws.

Transgender Rights - Transgender rights aim to protect individuals who identify as a gender that is different from the one assigned to them at birth. They argue that human rights should apply equally to all people, including those who are transgender, cisgender, non-binary, gender fluid, or intersex. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), transgender people face discrimination in education, housing, military service, credit access, and healthcare based on their gender identity or gender expression. There are 1.4 million trans adults who live in the U.S. Nearly half the United States does not have legal protections for LGBTQ+ employees. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal for employers to fire or discriminate against an employee because they are LGBTQ+. The 6-to-3 decision was a landmark victory for transgender rights. Transgender advocates work to strengthen and expand legal protections in schools, healthcare, the workplace, and common law. Opponents of transgender rights push back against the idea that people should have the right to identify as a gender other than their assigned birth gender. Religion is often a major source of anti-transgender sentiment. According to the Pew Research Center, 63% of U.S. Christians (ew) disagree that someone can be a gender different from the sex assigned to them at birth.

[I'm Christian, don't attack me for saying ew ✌️]

White Supremacy - White supremacy is a belief that white people are a superior race with the right to dominate society at the expense of other racial and ethnic groups. White supremacy has morphed into a political ideology that affects socioeconomic and legal structures within the United States. In recent years, white nationalism has gained political traction in the United States — even in the White House. "President" Donald Trump is widely condemned for promoting racism, bigotry, and hate speech through anti-Black, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim sentiments. White supremacists often clash with people of African ancestry, indigenous peoples, Muslims, and Jewish people. This racial violence has led to numerous acts of right-wing terrorism. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), right-ring extremists killed 38 people in 2019 — 76% of all extremist-related murders that year. These perpetrators typically self-identify with ideologies that include neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and neo-Confederates. White supremacists heavily coalesced around the removal of Confederate monuments amidst the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. The monuments have long drawn ire for honoring the institution of slavery. Opponents of the white nationalist movement typically advocate for stricter hate crime laws, open immigration reform, and protection against racial or religious discrimination. They also push for greater access to economic power for marginalized racial groups and for reparations for slave-descended Americans. There is also an ongoing debate over how to classify white nationalist violence and activities, with opponents of the white nationalist movement calling for such actions to be classified as domestic terrorism.

Aaaaand, last but CERTAINLY not least ...

BLM (Black Lives Matter) - The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is a political movement to resist police brutality against Black people. BLM began in response to repeated instances of law enforcement facing little to no legal repercussions for use-of-force incidents that resulted in a Black person's death. BLM has grown into one of the most massive movements in U.S. history. Recent polls found that between 15 to 26 million Americans participated in BLM demonstrations in 2020 over the deaths of George Floyd, Elijah McClain, Breonna Taylor, Emmett Till, and other victims of police brutality. Supporters of the movement consider police brutality to be a form of oppression against Black people, arguing that it is one symptom of inequalities in legal, judicial, and socioeconomic status. Advocates also believe that failure to prosecute officers for using excessive force demonstrates that Black lives are less valued than white lives. BLM has proposed defunding police, reforming law enforcement, investing in underserved communities, and holding officers accountable for racial bias and brutality. Critics believe that BLM is an unfair condemnation of law enforcement. They argue that defunding police or changing their tactics would undermine their ability to uphold the law under dangerous circumstances. Others point to Black-on-Black crime as justification for anti-Black attitudes, while dismissing or ignoring acts of violence by white people that specifically target Black people. The Blue Lives Matter (BlueLM) and All Lives Matters (ALM) slogans were adopted to reflect this pro-police stance.

Hopefully this helps someone! Remember, always have a cool head when debating ignorant others :)

I believe in you!

[bumblebee-moreno]

It’s 2019, for #@!&’s sake

It’s 2019 and we’re still on the discrimination thing? Really?

I get it, we’re getting closer to equality, but we’re still farther away than we could be.

           Why is it that Race still matters to people? Why do we still have different ways of treating “black people” and “Asian people” and “white people”? Why can’t we just treat everyone like people? We say we’re not racist, but we are. Why do people still think it’s okay to even joke about how one race is better than the other? Why do we have the racial stereotypes of all Asians being geniuses? Why do we have the stereotypes of white people all being racists with no rhythm? Why do we stereotype that African Americans are all good at basketball? Stereotyping, no matter how discriminated against the race is, is harmful.

           Why is it that people still think they can bully people over their religion? Why do people think it’s okay to bully people who have religion different from ours? Why would it ever be okay to tell someone they are wrong for living some way that doesn’t agree with our beliefs?

           Why is it acceptable to tell someone they’re less than someone else because they were born one gender rather than the other? Why is it okay to dehumanize people who are intersex? Why would anyone ever think it’s okay to tell someone that they were born one way so they have to stay that way?

           I don’t understand at all why anyone would think it’s okay to disrespect people because they love differently than the normal? Why does it matter if a man is into men or a woman is into women or either is into both? How does that affect you? That’s right, it doesn’t.

            How do people think it’s okay to treat someone like shit because you don’t find them attractive? How do people think it’s acceptable to tell someone they’re “too attractive” to do something they enjoy? Why would someone have to look a certain way in order to do what they love?

           Why is it okay to treat people who are mentally disabled like they’re dumb? Why can’t we accommodate for people without babying them?

           What makes it okay to treat someone badly just because they have more or less money than you? Since when are people with less money any less human than those with more? Since when do stereotypically “rich” people have to bully the “poor”?

           Why do people base their opinions on people from who they hang out with? Why do people think we are all the same as our friends?

           Why do people assume people always follow the stereotypes of the country they were born in?

           What makes people who don’t speak the native language of wherever they are dumb?

           Can’t we treat everyone equally, no matter how educated they are? How do people think that people with less education deserve to be bullied?

           Why does age matter? Who cares if someone is ten years, twenty years, or even two years younger than you? Does a younger age make us invalid as humans?

           Why does a person’s disability make it okay for you to harass them? Why can’t you accommodate them without being mean? Is it too hard to give them space without making a snide remark or a nasty face?  

           Why do we tell people they are wrong for disagreeing? Why are different opinions so frowned upon? Can’t we have unpopular opinions without being bullied and called dumb?

           I’m so sick of all of this. We think we’re so progressive, and yet many of us still bully people who are different. Yes, there’s some of us out there who don’t believe in treating others like total shit for being different, but those who do treat them that way speak much louder.

           Why are the kind people so quiet?

           Speak up.

           Race shouldn’t matter. People need to stop pretending it does. People need to recognize that you can be racist towards any race, not just those that are minorities.

Religion needs to stop mattering so much to people. Other people have just as much a right as you do to choose their own set of beliefs, so you need to respect that.

Sex should never affect how someone is treated. People need to stop arguing over which gender is superior. We need to stop fighting about who is “actually” the gender they say they are. News flash for some of you: if someone tells you they are one gender, then they probably are. It doesn’t matter what parts they have. And even if you don’t agree with that, why the hell would you treat them like they aren’t even human? Some people are born with the opposite parts they should, and you don’t get to tell them that they can’t be their proper gender. Some people are born with both or neither parts of one specific gender, and you have no right to tell them they are less human than you or don’t get to be the gender they feel like.

Sexuality is irrelevant. So what if someone loves the same or opposite gender as themselves? It’s never acceptable to harm someone in any way for who or how they love. That doesn’t define them. That’s just a small part of them. What defines them is their behavior, their personality, their presentation of themselves. You don’t get to tell someone they are a piece of shit just because they love differently than you.

Appearance isn’t something that affects in any way who someone is. Someone who is less attractive than someone else isn’t dumber or in any way lesser than the other. You have no right to tell someone they can’t do something they enjoy doing just because they are “too ugly” to be good enough or “too pretty” and you wouldn’t want their face messed up (as long as it’s not actually harming you or others, obviously).

Mental disabilities don’t make people dumb. They are just as human as you, and you should never treat them like shit just because they have a disability. They didn’t choose have the disability, so why would you treat them like they did?

Social status is bullshit. But since we’re never going to be able to get rid of it, why not make it easier for those who are lower on the scale? Don’t tell someone they don’t deserve something just because they have less money than you. Don’t tell them they are less than you, because they’re not. We’re all just people, so why can’t we treat each other so?

We are not the people we are friends with. Just because one of our friends does drugs doesn’t mean we do too. Telling someone they are a bad person because their friends are bad people is like telling someone they are disabled because their best friend is in a wheelchair. Yeah, doesn’t make sense, does it? That’s because it’s bullshit.

People don’t always follow the stereotypes of the country they were born in. Not all Americans are overweight, gun loving racists, just as not every person living in England drinks a ton of tea and speak overly posh.

So many people are bullied for being in a country where they don’t speak the native language. Language barriers exist, and we don’t need to treat them like the person on the smaller or other side is dumb. Not speaking a certain language doesn’t make someone dumb. That seems kind of obvious to me, but apparently it’s not that obvious.

People without as much education still have feelings. You can’t just go around bullying them for being “dumb”. They are doing their best and don’t need those who were given more education making it harder. Be a decent person, for heaven’s sake.

Age is just a number. I know you’ve heard that a billion times, probably more. But that’s because it’s true. Not all “old people” are sexist, racist, and bad with computers. Not all minors are dumb kids who know nothing about life. We need to appreciate people of all ages. We all hold value.

Physical disabilities aren’t something we can bully people over. It doesn’t make people less than us. Nobody chooses to be disabled. Stop telling them they can’t do things you know very well that they are fully capable of doing.

Opinions are just that—opinions. Yet, somehow we all get angry when people disagree with ours. You can’t go around saying your opinions and get mad when someone shares theirs. You especially can’t use the common argument of “I’m allowed my own opinions so you can’t tell me yours.” Seriously, I’ve been called many things (some of them so vile they can’t be repeated) just for having opinions different than someone. You can’t tell people their opinion is wrong. It’s not a matter of fact. You’re entitled to your own opinions, yes. But so are other people. If you can’t deal with people disagreeing, then don’t voice your opinion. You can have opinions without having to share them. You can share opinions and not be offended when someone disagrees with you.

Now, a lot of people might say that I’m probably some rich white boy who’s been privileged my whole life and therefore none of this is valid and I can’t preach about it because I’ve never encountered any of it. And you know what, go ahead and say it. Because technically, you’re partially right. I am white, I am a boy, and I’ve never had money troubles. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t encountered any of it.

Just because I’ve never been bullied for being white, I’ve had to comfort close friends after being bullied for it. (though I have been told that I’m not allowed to complain because I’m white and privileged and therefore none of my problems are valid… tell that to gender dysphoria, lol)

I’m an Agnostic in a highly Christian area. I’ve been harassed many times about switching over to Christianity. I’ve been called ‘dumb’ and ‘wrong’ for not believing in god. I know it’s not one of the religions that’s more prejudiced against, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t encountered prejudice.

Yeah, I’m currently a boy, but it wasn’t always that way. I was born a girl. I’m not open to much more than family, but I’m starting my transition at school and I present as male. So if anyone knows about sex prejudices, it’s me.

I identify as pansexual. (for those of you who don’t know, it’s similar to bisexual, except I like more than just boys and girls. I’m also into people who aren’t necessarily binary gendered.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Go ahead and argue with me. I’m open to it. Tell me the world is already progressive enough and I shouldn’t be complaining.

Go ahead, I fucking dare you

[genderqueerpositivity]

Please stop telling people self-diagnosing is okay. It’s really not and you need to be diagnosed with dysphoria BY A PROFESSIONAL to identify as trans, and if you don’t have dysphoria, you’re not trans and you won’t get the treatment. If you don’t want the treatment and never wanted it then guess what? You’re not trans and you never were. Plain and simple.

(TW: transmedicalism, anti-self diagnosis, suicide, ableism, gatekeeping)

It’s really incredible how the same discourse talking points get recycled over and over again. This message sounds like every anti-self diagnosis argument I’ve ever heard used to target neurodivergent people. This argument was bad then and it’s still bad now. And, I’m going to break down some of the issues that come with anons’ way of thinking.

1) The medicalization of transness is harmful. First and foremost, it takes the power to define transness and trans identity out of the hands of trans people ourselves and places it squarely in the hands of medical professionals–medical professionals who are majority cisgender.

Cisgender people should not be in the position of being allowed to define the transgender experience or to award the label of True Trans to whom they see fit. The gate is not theirs to keep, so to speak–they have no right to the keys.

2) There is no single trans narrative. We have different genders or no genders and we’re not all binary and even many binary trans people are gender nonconforming. There are people who aren’t cis–and who may or may not identify as trans–but who identify outside of binary western concepts of gender entirely. There is no one age where every trans person “figures it out” and we all come to the realization in our own ways.

Dysphoria (for those who have it, and no, not all trans people do) comes in different types and looks different for each of us. Gender euphoria exists, and can exist with or without dysphoria. Even among those of us who have dysphoria, the same “treatment” cannot simply be applied for every trans person of a specific gender–transition isn’t one size fits all. There are genderfluid people who only want to socially transition, trans men who don’t want top surgery, trans women who don’t want HRT, nonbinary people who want both, and agender people who want neither–along with a million other combinations and experiences.

A trans person denied the ability to transition by a medical professional is not necessarily secretly cisgender, or for that matter, non-dysphoric. Often, they simply did not fit the cis idea–based upon stereotypes and the narrow popular narrative–of what a trans person is supposed to look and be like. They were too feminine, not masculine enough, not binary, gender variant. Or perhaps they’re neurodivergent, intersex, a person of color, gay or bisexual, physically disabled, etc. The problem with allowing cis professionals the power to decide who is and isn’t trans is that these professionals are not infallible–they have prejudices, they internalize stereotypes, they may have received little or no education on trans issues, and they cannot know first-hand what it’s like to be trans the way any trans person can.

3) While you may believe that having transness defined as a medical condition will lend legitimacy to our identities in the eyes of transphobes, that is not the case. It is literally already a conservative belief that being trans is inherently disordered–and so requires treatment or cure. Quite frankly, the only real difference between what you propose here and what those conservatives believe is that you have different ideas about what the cure should be.

While interaction with the medical industry is required for medical transition (and I fully support every trans person who is medically transitioning or who hopes to do so one day; I may do so one day myself) pathologization of transgender identity is not and never will be our friend.

4) Requiring diagnosis before one is allowed to identify as trans takes resources and community away from trans youth. Trans kids, especially those who have unsupportive families, are already at a disproportionate risk of depression or suicide, and denying them access to the trans community can only worsen that situation. Every trans young person deserves access to trans spaces and trans supportive spaces, whether they’re “diagnosed” or not.

5) The same is true for poor and rural trans people–those of us who can’t afford medical transition or who live hours away from the nearest trans competent health providers. Not every trans person lives in fucking Portland or Seattle. Not every trans person can afford to see a gender therapist. Not being able to call ourselves trans without an official stamp of approval from a professional further isolates us from community support.

None of what you propose makes any of us any safer, it gains us no rights and no more respect than we already have, it does not decrease societal cissexism or transphobia, and it does not increase access to medical transition for those who lack it. Instead it takes away our power to define our own communities and own our own experiences. Where we have strength in numbers, this would make us weaker by division.

Cutting some of our most vulnerable people (young, poor, and geographically isolated) off from our community is not how we improve trans health overall, it’s how more precious lives are lost.

Every trans person–diagnosed or not, dysphoric or not, binary or not–deserves to be included in a supportive trans community. You belong here. We belong here. Plain and simple.

[theyounganarchistmagazine]

Imagination +Pain= Dreams by Anarchy Munroe

Imagine walking into the world a fresh being; no knowledge of right, wrong, color, gender, physical sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or what it means to be anything other than you. As you form you see others; many skin tones, shapes, sizes, and languages. Than life- like a mirror shows you what you look like.  You realize that the image of self isn’t quite matching the mental picture you’ve perceived. You see that you are comfortable in your skin, presentation, but slowly people point out that because of genitals that you have to be something contrary to your nature. You’re slowly but surely perplexed and ask why? Why do I look different than I feel?  On top of that people around you are pointing out that the skin, that youre wearing comfortably is no longer acceptable. Because of your skin tone somehow you were less than the others… People start to question your character, your identity, and your attributes because you stand out. You feel vulnerable. You feel unearthed. You feel alone. Like a teenage girl with anxiety about her weight, her acne, and her image, you start clawing at your skin. You rip, scratch, claw, beat at your flesh hoping that parts will change and shift. Maybe, if you scratch hard enough it’ll lighten up.. Maybe, if I cut at it, it’ll shift people’s perceptions,  Maybe if I change my hair color, wear color contacts, or dress more like those whom I see in a place of power in this world, it’ll work for my benefit; maybe just maybe if I change the way I talk, walk, and behave they’ll accept me… But still I am called a nigger/spic from my peers and sellout from those of my hue and community. No matter what I do- I am wrong.

Staring in the mirror I see my body and my image, isn’t what I believed it to be. I’ve seen others like me but their form isn’t the same. I have a penis where a vagina is supposed to be. I no longer have the perception of self that I once believed mattered. My life doesn’t matter. My love doesn’t matter. My heart doesn’t matter. No matter what I see I have found my identity to be unworthy, unacceptable, and torn down. Walking down the halls of school, living in my apartment complex, listening to the news, songs on the radio, messages of the church and many other religious institutions telling me that my identity is wrong- deserving of death; I am called a faggot,  abomination, sinner, and that I deserve to die. Could it be true? Could it be true that I am unworthy to be loved; could it be true that the nature of the world, the foundations that I was created from, and the womb that birth me is wrong? OR did somewhere along the way did I go wrong.. I feel hopeless.

After hate, after bulling,  after shaming, after slut shaming,  after neglect, and after rejection I am confronted with microaggression after microaggression… This is the journey of women of color. Being a woman is pain, lies, shame, and hurt. People want to exotify your identity you and abuse your being. If you aren’t white all of a sudden you’re the other. They think you’ll be their fantasy, their toy, their whore, and that you’ll fulfill their kinky sexual desires. You are not a person but an image of their imagination; a creation birthed in their mind to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want. They want you to do whatever they say and whenever they want say because you don’t have a private life and you don’t deserve to be loved. Countless times, I am told what I am “supposed” to look like, talk like, and how I am not good enough. When we say no, we are told that are whores, sluts, disease ridden, and disgusting; a slew of microaggressive phrases, lies, and exaggerations thrown at  you but when you fight back youre in the wrong.

Intersex or TransWomen of Color are here to objectified, marginalized, subjugated into a box so demenished of love and life that we end up in sex work as a form of survival. In school we are taught that are bodies are here to the pleasure of the video vixen. I am supposed to be hyper sexual, twerk, and be all the things that “Whyte women aren’t”.. these are all Microagressions. I am supposed to have long nails, hair straight, always dolled up, and I am supposed to not exist until I am told too. I am not supposed to infringe on any males life because I should be just happy with the emotional leftovers that come from their dick. I am taught that I am too be smart but not too smart that I challenge any males manhood, ego, self esteem, self respect, or self perception. Unless he enjoys that than I should be that and all the above things his caregiver as well. Before I get too far ahead of myself I have to stop to remind everyone that I am supposed to be stealth at all points in time as well except when a man tells me it’s okay. Stealth means that intersex and transwomen (people born with either chromosomal, sexual, or reproductive organs that that don’t identify necessarily with the traits that a doctor says one is supposed to be at birth (intersex) or may have been born with a penis but identify with cisgender women or gender non gender conforming individuals (trans)) should do their best to be as close to the what “regular woman” look, act, behave, and live like Cisgender women. Cisgender is a person born one gender and identify with the gender they were born as. So just as I have stated above, I am supposed to as stealth as possible, passable (aka socially acceptable), hyper sexual, open, available, nurturing, motherly, invisible, have perfect vocal pitch/tone, pure, and yet, virginal. Everyday. Single. Day. I am supposed to be all these things to every male I meet: while being closeted about what I am, I’m still supposed to tell everyone I meet so no feels like they are being deceived/tricked. So please tell me how we supposed to live? How are we supposed to survive but be all these things to everyone?

It’s like socially conditioning, gas lighting, and abuse all the time. Literally in this world of constantly being the other you have to be strong or you won’t make it. According to the Washington Times,” More than 41 percent of those identifying as “transgender” or gender nonconforming who have attempted suicide, compared with 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide attempt. It is also higher than the 10-20 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever attempting suicide. These data come from a study by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and UCLA’s Williams Institute, which analyzed results from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. More than a dozen other studies since 2001 have found similar results for alarmingly high rates of suicide for transgender individuals like Chelsea Manning.” This doesn’t count those who weren’t interviewed. This isn’t adding those who ended their lives, were killed, or lost in the mix of life.

Before Laverne Cox can anyone name a Woman of Color who was trans in main stream America in the last 20 years? Can you name any woman of color that is trans or intersex that has made it mainstream without being a sex worker first? Almost all of them have been through it because the incredible amount of discrimination that we face trying to get jobs, look well, be mentally healthy, date, and just be ourselves. It’s so hard that we can’t ourselves. We’re constantly fighting, surviving, and trying to live. It’s difficult when over 60%  to 90% of the trans or intersex people I’ve known have no biological family to go or turn to for help. That means, when life falls apart we’ve either got to depend of the system or the people around us for help. It’s impossible to make it without help. Medication, education, awareness, and learning to survive, live, and POSSIBLY survive all comes with a price. Hormones, surgery, medication, and mental help all come with a hefty price tag and we are constantly trying to take care of it all while warring with the expectations that are laid upon us. Here’s been a snippet of the population that is constantly being oversexed, overstretched, and constantly being violated but we fight to survive.

Ive known the struggle of trying to be socially conscience, be a woman that I am proud of while, still trying to make people around me happy. My struggle isn’t alone; my struggle is than forced on others around me because they are near me. They become stigmatized, shamed, hated, and discriminated against. My life, our lives, can be and often are hell.  We fight for crumbs but often give up when the pain, weight, and hurt of the world becomes too much. People like to stigmatize us, limit us to our genitals, and socially condition us to be all that they want us to be but when we fight against that to become our own; own our sexuality, own our identity, fight against conformity, and demand to stand our ground we are often forced into a corner. This is why so many us end up dead, simply existing is a threat to power structure that tells us we shouldn’t exist.

[impertinentleft]

History and Background

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (the Act) was introduced on 21 March 1984 by the Hawke Labor Government. It makes up part of Australia’s sparse legal framework for protections from discrimination, including on the basis of sex, race, age and disability (and religion, if the current government gets its way). 

The Act gives effect to Australia’s obligations as contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and seeks to

‘eliminate discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or breastfeeding in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs’ (section 3 of the Act).

In 2013 the then Gillard Labor Government amended the Act to introduce the words ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status’, replacing the previous version which only referred to ‘marital status’. At the time, the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus MP, explained that the intention was to introduce three new grounds of discrimination that would be protected: sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. 

However, at the same time the amendments also extended the exemptions to these prohibitions, which Dreyfus called ‘legitimate’ differential treatment, in the aid of protecting the right to freedom of religion for parents and educational institutions established for religious purposes (as found under article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)).

The result was that while protections existed for Australians on the basis of these attributes, extension was also granted to the existing exemptions for bodies established for religious purposes, including religious schools. Sections 35, 36 and 50 of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 (the Amendment Act) allowed for single-sex educational institutions and educational institutions established for religious purposes (under subsection 21(3) and section 38 of the Act) to discriminate against students (or prospective students) on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.

On 29 November 2018 Senator Penny Wong introduced an amendment, titled Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 (the Bill), which sought to undo these exceptions for education institutions established for religious purposes. 

Clause 1 in Schedule 1 of the Bill limits the exception in section 21 of the Act, which makes it unlawful for bodies established for religious purposes (that are also educational authorities) to refuse, or fail to accept, a person’s application for admission as a student on the ground of the person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding. Clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill removes entirely subsection 38(3) of the Act, which would make it unlawful for an educational institution to discriminate against students because of those attributes regardless of the religious susceptibilities of adherents of the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of the particular religion or creed of the school. 

Current Controversy

As Senator Wong explained, the Coalition Government, the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and cross-bench parliamentarians agreed that the Act must be changed to prevent any school from discriminating against students (Paul Karp, The Guardian, 13 Oct 2018). Wong acknowledged that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee looked into these provisions and received evidence from schools that they did not want the exemptions that allowed them to discriminate against LGTQI+ students (Legislative Exemptions that Allow Faith-based Educational Institutions to Discriminate against Students, Teachers and Staff, November 2018, pp 27-30). 

Despite this, the changes introduced were met with fierce criticism and outrage by religious fanatics and conservative commentators (here, here, here, here and here to name a few). No semblance of liberalism or pluralism was to be found; and no concern for the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ children was to be found. Despite evidence that LGBTQI+ kids are harmed by such discrimination (see Lynne Hillier et al, ‘Writing Themselves in 3: The Third National Study on the Sexual Health and Wellbeing of Same Sex Attracted and Gender Questioning Young People’, 2010). Despite the overwhelming public support for removing the exceptions; 74 per cent of ‘voters oppose laws to allow religious schools to select students and teachers based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status’.

I have seen dozens of emails - and received a few phone calls - from people virulently opposed to any changes to the Sex Discrimination Act. They mistakenly believe that the changes are an assault on the power of religious schools to teach their faith. They screech about the rights of parents to exercise their religious beliefs. They demand, in capital letters, to be given an explanation for this incursion. Nobody considers the rights of the children to access education safely. And the conservative media, with the Government and its flurry of amendments, perpetuate the misrepresentation that the amendments proposed by Wong would remove the right of schools to teach religion. As demonstrated above, Senator Wong’s amendments are targeted to one purpose: removing the right to discriminate against students on the basis of their LGBTQI+ status. 

But Labor Senator Kimberly Kitching, speaking on the Bill, thought it necessary to appease these people:

‘An essential part of religious freedom is the right of parents to send their children to religious schools. It must follow from that that religious schools, whether those schools are Christian, Jewish, Islamic or indeed anything else, have a right to educate their students in a way that encourages them to adhere to the faith and practices of the religious denomination which established them’.

Senator Kitching supports the Bill, obviously, but made no mention of the impact that such protections of the sensibilities of religious people (and institutions) has on the physical and mental health of the students and children who would be subject to discrimination. The children, after all, are the ones with the least amount of power to control their lot; with the weakest capacity to stand up for themselves; and are the least equipped to be resilient in the face of violence and discrimination. In short, they are the most in need of protection by the power of the law. 

On the other hand, Senator Janet Rice of the Australian Greens reminds us of the need for:

‘every child and teacher in Australia [to have] the comfort to know that they will be respected and loved and treated equally, simply because of who they are, not because of some outdated legislation that sends a message, not just to them but to all people, that somehow the way they are is wrong or different’

And importantly, that ‘harmful attitudes, made acceptable to some in the guise of religious ethos, effectively destroy LGBTQ lives’. 

Citing a study conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University, the Human Rights Law Centre, in its submission to the Senate inquiry into these exemptions, stated that ‘same-sex attracted and gender questioning young Australians with a religious background were more likely than their non-religious peers to’:

report self-harm and suicidal ideation; 

feel negatively about their same-sex attraction; 

have experienced social exclusion; 

have been subjected to homophobic language from friends; and

report homophobic abuse and feeling unsafe at home (pp 8-9).

There is no doubt in my mind that these alterations to the Sex Discrimination Act, and many more, are absolutely necessary to protect and improve the well-being of LGTQBI+ kids and teachers. No right to believe something, even if it is a religious belief, should trump society’s obligation to the most vulnerable and to the health of its constituents. The right to freedom of conscience contains more than one part: it includes the right to act (or refrain from acting) in accordance with the conscience, as well as the right to hold a particular belief. But those parts are protected differently. When the right to religion collides with the rights of another, as rights so often do, what occurs should depend on the nature of the right. 

As a society, it is beholden on us to commit to protecting the right to health of one before the protection of religious susceptibilities of another. There is no doubt that the spiritual, inner life of everyone deserves to be protected, but the basic right to survival is paramount. Surely this is especially so in the case of children who, by their nature, have a reduced capacity to fend for themselves and whose trauma will irreparably alter the rest of their lives. Because of this, if the right of one person to act according to their religious beliefs is at risk of harming another person, that action must be prohibited. The right to health trumps the right to act according to a religious belief, but not the right to hold that belief (albeit, the belief is probably hideously outdated if acting on it risks harming people). 

Critique of Rights

While I believe in the absolute necessity of changing the Sex Discrimination Act to protect the well-being of students, it must be acknowledged that the law (even with Wong’s amendments) and all of Australia’s anti discrimination acts are wholly inadequate to deal with social inequality. 

Legal rights, such as human and civil rights like those found in international treaties like the ICCPR or CEDAW, are primarily liberal, bourgeois rights. They offer formal protection for individuals from Government action on the basis of certain statuses or attributes, and largely do not provide for positive actions to undo material power imbalances. As such, they are loathed by both the right and left of the political spectrum. 

From the socially conservative right because they seek to remove formal barriers for groups of people, such as women, people with disability, people of colour, to liberal, bourgeois institutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (US) which attempted enfranchise African Americans in state and local elections provided for access to voting to a previous marginalised group on the basis of race. For the economically progressive left human and civil rights are preoccupied with providing equality within existing liberal institutions and capitalist structures, and do not offer much in terms of empowering workers on the basis of class status. Returning to the Voting Rights Act, while removing legal barriers for African Americans to vote in state and local elections in the US, it is wholly inadequate to remove the structural inequities of the US economic and political system which remained - there were no reparations for the horrors of slavery, and no alterations to the electoral college system (an antidemocratic and racist institution which grants undue power to the less populace states).

The Sex Discrimination Act can be criticised in the same way. It merely provides for the legal right for individuals to sue the Government, a Government agency or body, or certain government funded institutions, for discrimination on the basis of certain attributes and statuses. This preserves the institutions of the judiciary, the courts and their conservative judges and legal professionals; ignores the material disadvantage of individuals most harmed by sex discrimination and their inability to enforce any legal right; and provides for no positive obligation on the Government to rectify existing imbalances that may exist as a result of decades of discrimination that had previously been permitted.

Going Forward

The conservative Morrison Government has announced that it will refer the question of discrimination against students to a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and instead will focus on creating a Religious Discrimination Act, akin to the Sex Discrimination Act and others, which will provide for standalone protections for freedom of religion. This is supposedly in response to recommendations within the Ruddock Review into Religious Freedom (handed to Government on 18 May 2018, and publicly released seven months later on 13 December 2018). It’s disgusting that these amendments were made in the first place - a mere five years ago by what’s meant to be the more progressive of the major Australian political parties. But the current Government is being even more duplicitous. In order to win voters who lent more socially progressive in one electorate, the Prime Minister promised action. After losing the by-election anyway, the PM has dropped the promise altogether. We can’t be surprised though that Morrison doesn’t see the urgency in protecting the well-being of children and the right to health - this is the same PM who prays and cries for people he put into detention and subjects to cruel punishment. Despite his sorely and fiercely protected Christian beliefs (which he will sell out at every opportunity he can), Morrison is the person with the most power to stop the suffering of both LGTBQI+ kids and the children of asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, and yet he does nothing. Save your fucking prayers. I’ll defend your right to conscience (and those religious parents and schools) when you find it. 

[h0lybasil-blog]

Facts Are Not Feelings

The double-edged sword of activism linguistics.

QUEER LANGUAGE

If you know me at all, we’ve probably gotten into a conversation about linguistics at some point.

I’m particularly interested in the way language affects our ability to connect with one another, and how what we say influences how we feel.

A lot of activists in the queer community are also quite concerned with linguistics, and it’s an issue every person seems to relate to differently.

This morning, I woke up to a thread of Facebook comments on a casting call I posted, requesting “male bodied humans”.

The word choice was intentional. I didn’t want to ask for “dudes” or “men” because a fair amount of the dudes and men I know have vaginas. While I love them and want to celebrate their bodies and experiences, this particular project required someone who inhabits a biologically male body, regardless of how they identify their gender, which is a totally personal detail, and doesn’t have a lot to do with the body you inhabit, in my opinion.

Usually, when I’m at work, I am usually “in drag” as a cis-woman - I am dressing the part that society expects when they see my physical form. I’m comfortable with this! I’m also comfortable when I leave the house in jeans and a backwards baseball cap. Because I don’t identify as either gender, dragging as both can be a fun experience, and a powerful way to play with image.

I’m here, I’m queer, and I’m doing my best.

How I choose not to identify seems to cause confusion in people who aren’t up on the “in-group slang” (aka people who exist within the bounds of mainstream culture) — I’m not a man, not a woman, not a feminist, not a liberal socialist, not an anything, really, as I believe identity politics only lead to frustration.

But Tate, didn’t you just tell us all that you’re “queer”?

Yes! I did. That is an identity. You caught me :) While I claim my queerness, I am still a human first. I think that might be what I mean by identity politics — letting a facet of your experience become the lens through which you interpret and interact with the rest of your experiences.

This is hard. I want to be kind and respectful to everyone. I also want to be able to express myself in a way that feels authentic.

This next thing is difficult to say, because I know it will upset some people who are passionate about social justice:

I’m tired of being yelled at. Especially on the internet.

Today, I was accused of marginalizing and contributing to the physical harm of trans people. Going back to labels and identity politics, I don’t choose to call myself trans, though multiple people have told me that technically I qualify as transgender, since I don’t fit into the socially expected gender of my body. I don’t identity as trans because I think that while the word may have a more inclusive annotative definition, it is my perception that transgenderism has been culturally understood as males who identify as women, or females who identify as men.

Let me take a minute to explain this, before you start scrolling to the comment section to tell me that “female” and “male” are improper ways to describe people’s bodies.

Male/female are the medical ways we describe most of the population’s genetic sex. To be crass, a person usually has a sex organ that is either an innie or an outie, and that sex organ usually determines the balance of hormones they have in their body, and the shape and appearance it takes overall. Taking out of the mix people who have modified their bodies with hormones and surgery (fuck yeah for the freedom to body modify!), I am fully aware that individuals exist who’s bodies generate hormone imbalances, or are intersex.

These people are valid, and I care about them. I care about everyone. I want all of us who feel less than supported and celebrated by our current social/political/economic system to be free from whatever is telling them they aren’t allowed to reach their full potential. Just because someone is different than you doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be respected.

A lot of people prefer to use “AFAB/AMAB” or “DFAB/DMAB” — assigned/designated female/male at birth. To me, these terms are practically analogous with “male/female bodied human”, though I can see the argument that FAB/MAB is more inclusive to people who are intersex, as it acknowledges their being marginalized/erased by the medical system.

So why use the clunky term “male/female bodied human” if it causes strife?

Well, I use “female bodied human” to refer to myself, as I find it to be validating of my gender in the many situations where I am qualified for participation due to my female sex, regardless of the fact that I don’t identify as a woman. Work, for one, when it involves playing a role, as it often does. (Quick shoutout to Asia Kate Dillon for using their notoriety to leverage a much-needed change in the entertainment industry!)

Just because a silly string of words makes me feel comfortable, it might not work for everyone. And I think we need to be okay with that!

PRONOUNS

This is something I have struggled with. I prefer “they/them/theirs” pronouns. It’s awkward to ask people to use what feel like foreign language to refer to me. Most who aren’t a part of the queer scene will be confused by me “referring to myself as multiple people”. In a lot of ways, that feels accurate and comfortable for me — it feels like a truer reflection of my multi-faceted human experience. (Not that cis-gendered people can’t have multi-faceted experiences…)

I don’t ever expect perfection, nor total understanding, but if someone wants to be in my life, I do expect them to try. It’s hard to understand someone’s existence that you can’t relate to, but that’s where empathy comes in. While pronouns may be tricky, I don’t think it’s hard to understand someone’s desire to be seen as their true self. I think everyone should have the opportunity to identify however feels authentic, and also to have the freedom to disengage with people who don’t desire to respect their self-perception.

It’s all personal choice!

I identify as human, and I use my human capacities to work towards the greatest good for all humans, as far as I can understand it. Seems simple, right?

As it turns out, not really. Society is big, and takes time to change. We do change, though! Less than one hundred years ago, I likely would have already been jailed for taking one of my love interests on a simple date. In this country’s short existence alone, we have come to see women as more than property, black people as more than slaves, and homosexuals as more than perverts. I know we can do this gender thing, but it’s going to take work.

In the English language, we regard pronouns as a “fixed class” of words. This isn’t technically true, as “fixed” in this case just means “harder to change”, not “permanent”. More than two classes of pronouns for humans is so new to the mainstream, it’s still just a little larvae of a concept. We have a while to go before alternative pronouns are a butterfly of language, free and easy.

EDUCATING THE MAINSTREAM or COMPASSIONATE ACTIVISM

This is not something I ever thought I would say, let alone publish, but I want to publicly thank my mom for getting into a comment debate on my Facebook page. She brought up some valid points, properly gendered me, and was gracious to a stranger who (I believe with good motives) angrily typed in her direction.

Let me paint a picture: my mom is a self-described “boring 52 year-old” real estate agent who lives in San Diego. It has taken years of learning how to share my feelings and preferences with her to help her understand my perspective and experience. The conversation has spanned over a decade, and took a lot of incremental retooling as I became more comfortable with myself, as well as a better communicator.

I started with yelling at her as a teen, and slowly moved through stages of avoidance, confrontation, and finally listening to her — letting her teach me how to ask for what I want from her. We have learned to meet each other halfway in our vastly different life experiences. While one of her best friends is publicly gay, she doesn’t have access to the young, queer scene up here in Los Angeles. Hardly anyone does.

In activist communities, there is a lot of conversation around wanting people who aren’t in the know to “self educate” before they even ask questionsabout someone’s life they can’t begin to understand. Have you ever thought that since these people are open and curious enough to ask questions, they might be worth a few moments of your time and knowledge?

I’ll be the first to admit, if I observe said person starting to speak combatively, I walk away. No one deserves to be the whipping boy of a bigot. I trust you, compassionate activist, to make the distinction between a naive, normal person and someone who is festering in their hatred for things they don’t understand (usually including themselves).

If we weirdos, as the self-appointed teachers of the rest of the known Universe, can take the time to educate ourselves on how to best express our thoughts and ideas, we might start getting somewhere. But please, no more yelling.

I’m not saying no yelling in general, just no yelling at people. If like me, you have neighbors, great places to yell are into a pillow, in your car, and that’s about it.

It is so explicitly important that we learn how to communicate in a way that invites others to experiences and revelations, rather than chastises them for not knowing the newest in-group slang. It’s not fair to be mad at someone for not knowing something that you didn’t know less than a year ago.

If you know something before others, congratulations! You get a chance to be a teacher. It’s one of society’s most esteemed — and poorly paid — positions. In fact, you’ll be doing this job for free. But you don’t care, because you believe in the cause of all people being treated with respect!

So, let’s start by mastering how we introduce our philosophical ideals. Let’s be kind and generous with people who we perceive to be less knowledgable than us.

NON-VIOLENT COMMUNICATION

I can’t recommend highly enough that anyone who does any kind of activism familiarize themselves with the concepts of NVC (Non-Violent Communication), which is self-described as a system of “skills that foster compassionate relating”. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but I think it’s a lot better than what we currently fumble with, which is a lot of blaming, name-calling, and CAPS ATTACKS — three things I’m sure your rational mind recognizes as inefficient ways to get people to listen to you.

But Tate, gender/queerness/feminism/racism/etc. are emotional issues! We aren’t allowed to be emotional about emotional issues!?

Yes, these issues have deep emotional ties, which is why the conversation is hard. I’m glad you have strong feelings about oppression! I do too. Let’s examine how we want to transmit our feelings about injustice to those who may not be so aware, in an attempt to bring them on our team of humanist do-gooders. (Yes, it’s probably because of privilege that they aren’t aware of the way that some people struggle. No, I don’t think using the word “privilege” is going to strengthen your argument. It’s still in-group slang.)

Calling someone an oppressor is not going to get them to listen, either. We have to stop blaming white people. We have to stop blaming straight people. We have to stop blaming men. Mainstream culture is a representation of the average social experience. Yes, we can look back and see that a lot of our societal infrastructure is the product of many years of non-consensual power imbalance, but that doesn’t mean that every straight white guy alive today has to pay for it. It’s no more their fault that our world is unfair than it’s your fault for being whatever you are.

I’m saddened by the number of awake, compassionate men I know who have expressed the only way they feel welcome in any political conversation is to shut up, and publicly reduce themselves to a string of insults, “I’m a hopelessly cis-straight-white guy”. Perpetuating the cycle of blame and shame is not what we need. We need everyone on board, inspired to be their most compassionate and inclusive selves. We can’t do this by alienating most of the mainstream population, a lot of whom are smart and have skills to contribute.

If you have someone in your life who you want to introduce to the concepts that have freed your mind from the oppressive systems at play, please treat them with the same respect you want to be treated with.

I often find this NVC formula quite helpful. Ready for a mini lesson?

Verbally identifying these aspects of emotionally charged situations — in order — has been extremely valuable to me.

Observation

Feeling

Need

Request

Observation: What this means is, first, I want to identify — without judgement — exactly what is happening. This is different than an interpretation of events, which is often how we defend ourselves when we feel our ideology or identity is being threatened. I’m not using this example to shame anyone, but because it is fresh in my mind, I will use the Facebook debate as an example.

With the use of NVC skills, the conversation might have looked more like this:

“I notice that you’ve used the term “male-bodied humans” to effectively refer to “men”. Some trans people have told me that this is not how they like to be identified.”

2. Feeling: Next, I like to relate how what I’m observing affects me. Not how the other person “makes” me feel, because that isn’t a real thing, but how I naturally react to what I’m observing.

“I feel uncomfortable knowing that some people might feel excluded or erased by your choice of words.”

3. Need: This is the most important part. Relating your feelings back to a universal human need, and acknowledging the other person’s needs establishes mutual respect and understanding. Helping your conversation partner feel seen and cared for will do the opposite of attacking them - it has the potential to open them up to learning something new.

“I recognize our need to be specific when referring to people, and to have clear concepts for effective communication. I also want to respect the needs of others to be seen and accepted with our use of language.”

4. Request: Lastly, this is how adults ask each other for things. We make requests. We don’t demand, and we don’t passive-aggressively stew in our disbelief that someone hasn’t already read our mind and acted perfectly according to our silent desires. We ask specifically for what we want out of the interaction, and are prepared to hear “no”. No ultimatums.

“May I request you consider changing the term you use? I can suggest a different term that might be more palatable to more people.”

SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVITY

People are rooted in their personal experiences more than anything. We all experience our objective reality through unique, subjective lenses.

Because my subjectivity has led me to like the term “male/female bodied human”, it will probably take me a good amount of convincing that my preferred terminology (as someone who is already on the fringe of society) is unacceptable.

We run on an infinite treadmill of PC terms turning into slurs. It seems like each week another word goes out of vogue. We can’t get mad at each other for not knowing the latest, least “offensive” way to refer a person or concept.

We aren’t going to achieve equality by cyclically pushing people down and blaming them for our problems, which are all built on the backs of dead people. That’s why our prisons are filled to the brim with people of color. That’s why trans people are getting murdered daily. It’s not because I used the term “male/female bodied” (as a fellow “trans” person!) — it’s because we don’t know how to change the mind of the opposition.

This is exactly why political revolutions fail: the oppressed become the oppressors. Facts are great, but they won’t change people’s minds. People aren’t changed by statistics and lecturing. People are changed by personal experience — in other words, people’s opinions are changed by their feelings. (Ever wonder how Trump became our leader? Certainly not with facts.)

[teachanarchy]

As transgender lives and experiences increasingly come into the public sphere, our conversations about gender are getting more complex. And with those conversations comes the realization that we don't always know what to say when describing trans identities.

SEE ALSO: The faces of transgender teen America

But this learning curve offers a chance for us to get a little more inclusive and intentional with what we say. It's an opportunity that, for allies, is as essential as it is complicated.

Susan Stryker, director of the Institute for LGBT Studies at the University of Arizona, is critical of what she calls "language policing" — judging word usage without taking intent into account. When it comes to allies, Stryker says intentions are often good, but wording may rub some members of the community the wrong way.

"If someone is saying [only slightly non-inclusive phrases], they are probably trying to do the right thing," she says. "I think the trans person should understand the intention behind the act — and then, maybe at some point, address it."

People who are transgender should be called by the name and gender they wish. You might not "agree" with them but they still deserve respect

3232 Retweets

2828 likes

For those in socially disempowered positions, being able to define how you're spoken about can be really powerful, Stryker says. But in addressing language that can be non-inclusive, it is important to move toward a goal of education — not alienation.

"

It's about creating a space so you can go deeper into the issue, rather than trying to police speech

It's about creating a space so you can go deeper into the issue, rather than trying to police speech in a way that shuts down learning and awareness," she says. "The ally has to not be defensive. They have to say, 'Oh, I just said this thing that othered you. It's interesting that I enacted my privileged position. I just learned something — thank you.'"

If you're an ally who wants to acknowledge and improve upon your language missteps, educate yourself on five ways your speech may unintentionally marginalize transgender people — and how to fix it.

1. Using the phrase "preferred pronoun."

Pronouns are a big deal — and rightfully so. They're the definitive way we acknowledge and respect a person's gender in everyday conversation.

We all know using pronouns that honor a trans person's gender is top priority to be a good ally. But often when talking about why correct usage is important, we use the phrase "preferred pronoun" to describe a person's terms.

Using "preferred" to qualify someone's pronouns suggests that terms they are claiming don't really belong to them — they are just preferred over their "true" pronouns. In reality, a transman using "he" as a pronoun doesn't just prefer that word over "she" — that is the only pronoun that is acceptable to use in reference to him.

The fix: Instead of asking someone's preferred pronouns, ask, "What pronouns do you use?" It's a small yet substantial difference.

2. Saying someone was "born a boy/girl."

No matter how old a transgender person is when they come out, it's important to acknowledge they may feel their gender has always been the same one they are just now publicly claiming. To explain this concept, Stryker quotes Simone de Beauvoir: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

Stryker explains that nobody is truly born a boy or a girl; rather, we evolve to truly claim those (or other) gender markers as our own. Saying someone was born a boy or girl suggests they were inherently one gender, but chose to be another.

"We are all assigned male, female, or intersex at birth, and become the people we are," Stryker says. The fix: Use the phrase "assigned male/female at birth" instead. This phrasing respects the true gender of a trans person while simultaneously pointing out flaws in how we assign gender in society.

3. Using "he or she" as a catch-all.

View image on Twitter

English teachers said don't use they as a singular, neuter, pronoun. I ignored them. http://buff.ly/1A28rzF

105105 Retweets

221221 likes

When looking to be inclusive of all people, we often use the so-called gender catch-all "he or she." But when making it a goal to be inclusive of all people under the transgender umbrella, it's important to remember that binary pronouns don't fit all genders.

Non-binary and genderqueer individuals sometimes use pronouns like they/them and ze/hir. Using "he or she" actually excludes a group that deserves to be acknowledged.

The fix: The limitations of our language make correcting this problem tricky. Intentionally using "they" as a term to deliberately be inclusive to all genders works well, but may annoy some strict grammar lovers. Another option? Just rework the sentence. It's worth the trouble.

4. Using the term "self-identified" to qualify a trans person's gender.

Qualifying gender with the term "self-identified" may inadvertently suggest that a trans person's identity isn't actually valid. While Stryker says using the phrase "self-identified trans man" is perfectly fine when it's necessary to indicate someone is out proudly as transgender, using it to qualify their gender (e.g., "self-identified man") is a problem.

"It's not OK to say 'a self-identified man' for a trans man because that would imply they were only a man to themselves, not others," she says.

To put it another way, it would seem silly to call a non-trans man a "self-identified man," since no qualifier is needed. Trans people deserve the same consideration of having their gender respected.

The fix: Just drop the "self-identified" bit.

5. Saying someone is "female-bodied" or "male-bodied."

Some women have penises. Get over it. pic.twitter.com/AjDzuiGszB

— Ashlee Bliss (@Ashlee_Bliss) February 11, 2015

Most, if not all, trans allies will attest to the fact that thinking in terms of one standard female or male body is limiting. But well-meaning allies will use the terms "female-bodied" or "male-bodied" while trying to be inclusive of trans people, which can be a problem.

When someone uses the term "female-bodied," for instance, they are trying to address non-trans women and trans men. But the way they're using language to gender body parts actually suggests a trans man's body isn't truly that of a man.

It's important to remember that a trans person's body — no matter their transition or surgery status — is the body of their gender.

The fix: Just say what you mean. For example, if you want to specifically address non-trans women, just say "non-trans women."