#it does not address or even acknowledge intersectionality

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

im pretty sure this is not a popular opinion which is why i havent said it, but its been on my mind for months now so fuck it, i guess.

you know that post, the one about the barbie movie and margot robbie talking about barbie being a doll with no reproductive organs and sexual desire, and a lot of tumblr users just like, celebrating this as a win for asexuality?

i hate that post. a lot. like a lot a lot.

because while i dont think margot robbies conclusion is wrong (shes a doll), i think calling barbie asexual is inaccurate and it makes me, an ace person, uncomfortable.

like i dont think its a purposeful link, but that comparison very much implies that sexuality and sexual desire is tied to having reproductive organs, which uh no, thats not how that works and i really dislike that implication. idk about you, but i dont like tying my queerness to my biology.

that link is also one that rings of those who presume that there is a universal normative experience, which is also true of the movie itself, see jessie genders video on that. there are many people in the world who have what would be considered atypical reproductive organs and plenty whose reproductive organs can be considered not-working like those who have gone through the menopause, and they are not all ace.

its also just reductive as to what asexuality in general. margot robbies quote was specifically that barbie didnt feel sexual desire, and funnily enough, sexual desire =/= sexual attraction. while i, myself, be a sex-repulsed ace, there are plenty of horny aces who do the fuck. ive already mentioned the fact that im opposed to linking my queerness to biology, and honestly that part only made me more uncomfortable after the movie ended on "im here to see my gynecologist".

also just, barbie is a plastic doll. like thats how she starts in the movie itself. shes not asexual, shes a doll. and idk dude, theres just a part of me that is deeply uncomfortable with tying asexuality with a doll.

like imo, this just isnt the win for asexuality people were treating it as. we can do better than this.

especially considering the way queerness was handled in the film, but again, go watch jessie genders video on it, its better presented than my rambling post

[brick-van-dyke]

I feel like we, as white queers, need to have a little talk about solidarity and apathy.

This past year, we have been hearing stories of children as young 9 years old, coming home to find their entire families wiped out under bombardments and rubble. That's tragic, but it's also something we've grown accustomed to hearing; probably far too accustomed to. Despite this, have we been posting "how to escape Gaza and Israel aligned countries" or "helplines for Palestinian Americans who are struggling mentally"? Have we sat down and thought "how much room can I make for Palestinian refugees to live in any spare space I can afford to give until they're back on their feet?" In the same way we think about housing homeless queers in America? Have we felt that same dread of helplessness as we watched the Biden administrations support Israel without question, as we have when looking at Trump's support of anti queer groups?

This isn't to shame anyone or guilt anyone, but to genuinely push us to think; why are they any different? Why do these two issues feel different to American queers specially? The simple answer is that targeting queers affects us personally, while the other does not. That's not a comfortable thing to admit, but it is true and it's often why we would feel dread over Trump and Republicans, while not feeling that same level of dread at Benjamin Netanyahu Joe Biden or any of the democrats who are in favour of stricter sentences in the prison industrial complex. We know already, deep down, that the "they are the lesser evil" wasn't true in the sense we would mean it, at least not for Palestinians, black people and those already killed, oftentimes including the black people in our own communities. It will be worse, yeah, but they have been dying in the same ways we fear for ourselves this entire time. We need to think about that and take that in. Queer black trans women have died in record numbers under the Biden administration, but that affects white queers far less when we're not the targets, we can afford apathy and we oftentimes wouldn't know it's even happening when it's not us and people like us. When we're in our circles with mostly white queers and a few black queers, usually very few black trans women who would have felt the fear of being black and trans. That apathy and ignorance is something we have to face; our lack of solidarity until now and our individualistic upbringing to prioritise our own safety. I'm not saying wanting safety and peace is wrong, but we can't forget that others have been paying the price we have been fearing for far longer than just now when we've just been added to that list. For example, disabled queers don't have the right to marry like non disabled queers have achieved, yet we say there is marriage equality and forget this. There isn't marriage equality when so many other issues that don't effect white, cis, abled, etc. queers or any lack of intersectionality that lead to not being targeted by these specific legislations.

It's okay to want to be safe, but we must remember that not everyone in our community has had that luxury before Trump. He's targeting white queers as well now, yeah, and he'll be worse for everyone, but there has already been suffering that we, ourselves, have not acknowledged as equal suffering due to the lack of targetting of white queers. And we have to talk about that apathy and lack of solidarity if we're to move forward. That must become something we are aware of and address, as people and a community. I want to ask us to show the same heartbreak for these people and the same horror we reserve for ourselves when we are targeted, open our hearts to empathy and to make room for those who have been suffering all this time with the same amount of dread you're currently feeling but for far longer; long before Trump first became president in 2016 and now again in 2024, long before Biden and long before even Bill Clinton or George Bush. This has been going on for so long, and we have taken in the "progress" of some protections at the expense of a status quo that sacrifices others. So many have been suffering regardless of Trump in ways we've been fearing for ourselves. It has already been happening to them and we ought to show room for them in our hearts. They are our community, and solidarity must prevail before our own dread. Yes, Trump is bad, for them and us, but we have to stay strong and resist because until now it's been the black community on their own who have bore the brunt of far right prejudice and discrimination while we enjoyed the coddling of the democrat's protections and pink washing. It's long past overdue for white queers to join in solidarity with the black community, Arabs, Palestinians, the disabled community and every other marginalised group targeted by the democrats and who will also continue to be targeted by Trump.

We need to initialise our own will to have solidarity with others and listen to those beyond our own circles and communities, and we need to become aware of the threat of apathy that we are all capable of.

[rebellum]

Ppbthhh im too emotionally tired and busy to engage in a discussion about it but I just saw a thing saying sex-based oppression isn't real and that it's a terf concept, bc sex isn't real

Which like.. isn't how that works

Race isn't real, racism is real

Sex isnt real, sexism is real

Sex based oppression exists BECAUSE there is this flawed idea that there are 2 definable sexes, each with their own totally separate characteristics, and that one of these sexes a) exists b) is more powerful or better than the others c) the "other" sex is weaker and flawed

Like, that doesn't mean "everyone with a penis has a special penis privilege" nor does it mean "everyone who was assigned male at birth has a special AMAB privilege". Cause that's not true. Many people are oppressed specifically BECAUSE they were amab, or because they have a penis, (those are not the same thing!), and they don't fit into societal expectations of what that should mean (that everyone amab was born with a penis and will always have a penis, that they're the only people to have penises, that they must be men, that there must be no sex ambiguity, that the "dominant" hormone in their body is testosterone, that they not only are men but ACT like appropriately men by being heterosexual and strong and wearing men's clothes and doing a man's profession and not seeming feminine and having manly interests etc.)

Like.. sexism is real. It's not a terf concept to say sexism exists. It's not transphobic or intersexist to say sexism exists. Because it does and it's a major force of oppression.

And like one of the things the post mentioned was that the idea of sex based oppression is wrong is because it assumes people have shared experiences solely because of sex.

Which like, a) no it doesnt, that's literally the reason intersectionality exists, to describe how people who share one trait (eg sex) have different experiences that relate to that trait bc of having other traits b) yeah, that's like, one of the issues the modern and intersectional theories of sexism, the patriarchy, queer theory, and feminism as a whole are meant to address. That there exists a thing called sex and people are put into categories of it and that gender is a binary system solely based on sex. There is the belief that there are shared experiences based solely on sex, and pointing out that belief is wrong doesn't mean that everyone in the world goes "oh okay my bad", it means we need to engage with that idea. Like how race doesn't exist except for as a social construct, but racism sure does, and we can't address racism without acknowledging that people think there is a similarity between like a black man born in Toronto and a black man born into a foraging society in sub saharan Africa, a similarity based solely on appearance, that means they are more similar than the toronto guy is to his indigenous best friend he grew up with, but that regardless if the African man goes to Toronto he will experience racism because he's black. We have to engage with cultural constructions in order to challenge and dismantle them, and recognise that they do exist AS CULTURAL CONSTRUCTIONS (on mobile so I can't just put that in italics or it'll make the whole thing italic) even if they don't exist in some sort of "biological reality" and those constructions don't recognise the truth of the situation.

But like I'm just. So tired. I can type that out but I can't type out good replies or read more of what ppl say with a clear mind. Like I managed to say all that but I gotta go zone out to youtube videos for several hours now and stress about how i should be using that time for grad school stuff

[nothorses]

i don't remember if i've sent a similar ask before but i just wanna talk about how i feel that my political stances (while ideologically consistent and aligned with my personal values) are out of place where i live.

i live in a country where violence of all kinds against women is insanely common, which results in two things i'm conflicted about: the very eager internalization of radfem rhetoric in the few social circles where feminism is even accepted, and pretty extreme social media callout culture (similar to the metoo kind) which spirals into cancel culture.

i know for a fact that saying shit like "kill all men" and "all men are evil" is unproductive at best and harmful at worst. but this is just one example of the sort of rhetoric that is very very common in the most progressive of feminist circles here - it's literally the tip of the iceberg. i feel like i can't speak out against it (as a trans man myself) because i would be offending every woman who's had a horrible experience with a man. it would undoubtedly be seen as "incel behaviour" or misogyny (i actually got called an incel the one time i did it lmao). and anyway that just makes me wonder how we can ever manage to embrace a better form of feminism without first seeing progress already, so that refuting the aforementioned statements (and the feminism they represent) isn't seen as a personal or misogynistic attack. and if things do get better on their own, who's to say that people won't just take it as a sign of radical feminism working? idk it's really confusing

in a similar vein, i despise cancel/callout culture, but i don't know how to reconcile that with my support for victims who speak out. every time someone does that, it triggers a movement of others following suit, but this eventually spirals into attempts to cancel people for very minor incidents that can easily be learned from and moved past. i don't see any point in encouraging people to speak out as long as they're doing it for "good reason" because obviously that's kinda hypocritical, so that leaves me with two options: either nobody speaks out about anything or everybody does about everything. both of these lead to harmful outcomes, whether it's a toxic culture of silence and suppression (which is already a problem here) or a toxic culture of demonization and not allowing growth at all.

i know this doesn't sound great lmao, but i formed most of my feminist opinions based on the things i saw on tumblr and other online spaces (plus some readings by historical feminists) that i felt were logical and effective. the problem with that is that all these spaces are predominantly white - which i am not - so the things i read are mostly by white people. and it leads me to wonder whether, even by critically thinking about the content i consume and forming independent opinions, i'm trying to apply a mostly white solution to a non-white situation. that implies that the brand of feminism i practice and advocate for is only useful in white spaces. it acknowledges the intersectionality of race, class, and gender but it doesn't feel like something that is readily acceptable to my own community - and i don't really blame my community for that either. so i wonder: is it my feminism that's the problem or the situation we're all in?

anyway. idk this is just some stuff i've been thinking about, especially since all the current tumblr drama started again. thank you for reading. stay safe <3

Hey you sent this to me ages ago- I'm sorry it's taken so long to get around to answering!

I can't address everything here, but I can offer some thoughts to maybe chew on:

It seems like you're muddled up in a lot of very black-and-white questions: "either nobody speaks out about anything, or everybody does about everything" is a pretty all-or-nothing way of looking at callout culture.

I've been talking to a large audience for a while now, and I've noticed a few things:

Pretty much everything I say and do will be interpreted and responded to in ways I could never have predicted, especially if it reaches enough people.

However far my reach seems, and however serious my impact, it is always, always going to be a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.

The circles I run in & the shift of culture within them are lightyears away from even the circles some of my friends run in. Whatever the culture here, the culture in a neighboring circle could be vastly different.

I very often don't have the knowledge, influence, or power to try to speak to every person, every culture, every issue, or every circle- or to predict what my words and actions might do. That's not a bad thing. It also neither absolves me of responsibility for my actions, nor means I'm insignificant.

I say that because I think it's important to have some perspective, and because at least personally, it's taught me that it's pretty pointless trying to act based on what kind of impact I think I'll have.

My advice is to evaluate this stuff based on what you actually believe. Incorporate some nuance. Choose what you say and what you do based on what seems right for that situation, and allow that decision & the ideas behind it to evolve over time. Be guided by your values, not other people's potential reactions.

So to take your callout culture question, for example: ask yourself, what makes a callout bad? When might they be useful? Why do people make callouts? Who is hurt when a callout is made? Is it worth it? Is there an alternative? What is that alternative? What does the ideal situation look like? What is reasonable to advocate for?

Those kinds of questions are what critical thinking is, and you'll probably start to uncover a lot of nuance once you start asking and answering them. Embrace it. It means you're giving the issue the care, complexity, and space it deserves.

[goldheartedsky]

I told myself I wasn’t going to make a post like this—that I wasn’t going to stoop to the level of making call-out posts—but I really can’t stay silent after what has happened in the last day or so.

The TOG fandom has a serious issue with excusing antisemitism and allowing people who have painfully hurt marginalized groups to continue to ignore, dismiss, and refuse to acknowledge their limits of intersectionality in regards to social justice. I have seen it myself, been on the receiving end of it, and have talked to other Jews in this fandom about what’s been going on and it needs to start being addressed.

Now, I’m not going to name names or tag people (mainly because I have been blocked by almost all of them for this very issue) but if you message me I will gladly tell you the users involved in this. Also, if you have doubts of any of this’s validity and would like screenshots, feel free to reach out to me here or via Discord and I will share them.

A lot of this started when a member of the All&More server had brought up the scientific and medical “discoveries” during the torture and medical experimentation that took place during the Third Reich and how a lot of the origin of it isn’t taught. LR made a comment saying that “we are three-dimensional creatures who are stuck moving forward in time and can’t go back” and added that not using the research won’t make past horrors not happen. When the original user added that there has been a movement in medicine for removing Nazi scientists names off discoveries and that progress was slow moving, she deflected the conversation onto herself, saying “Not using research won’t make my family not harmed by the Japanese” and then immediately pivoted into admitting that, from what she understood, there weren’t any particularly valid scientific discoveries made by them. She then said, in regards to said Nazi atrocities, “Take it, learn about it, put it in context, and then own it and transform it.”

A Jewish member of A&M voiced their discomfort about possibly taking medicine that was a direct result of the murder of their grandparents and other relatives, to which LR said, “Still stuck in the 3rd dimension, still moving forward in time.” I brought up the fact that medicine was built on antisemitism and racism and that starting over would be better than a lot of the procedures we have now. There is a longstanding issue in medicine of disregarding black pain and so much of what we have now is created by eugenicists—including Nazi scientists. There is still a lot of Jewish trauma due to medical experimentation and that is oftentimes dismissed.

LR then made a flippant comment about “Does this count as Godwin’s Law?”—which is about how all internet discussions lead to someone being compared to Nazis/Hitler. When called out on the inappropriateness of the comment, she did not respond and was backed up by one of the mods of the server. There was no apology made nor an acknowledgment about the casual antisemitism of the comments she made and the dismissal of Jewish trauma/pain.

Now, fast forward a couple months when I was contacted by a third party who had not been in the server at the time but had joined and heard about what LR had said there. H said they were friends with LR and had concerns about antisemitism and would like my perspective. I explained what had happened and offered screenshots if they would like them, which they did. They thanked me and apologized that it got to a point that I felt unsafe in the server and had to leave, which I appreciated.

A couple weeks later they reached out to me again and offered to broker a conversation between LR and myself because the situation wasn’t sitting well with them. I was skeptical (because I had been blocked at that point) and didn’t have a lot of hope that this conversation would actually take place but I felt a responsibility to try and be the bigger person and deal with what had been said head on, so I agreed to sit down and have a discussion with her as long as there was a third party in the chat as well—given our history.

After a couple weeks of back and forth with H and hearing that LR had said that she would “think about it”, she finally agreed. I was asked for a time and date and I gave my availability and was told she would be asked for the same. A couple days later, I was suddenly told LR would only be comfortable with this conversation if H acted as a “literal go-between” with us copy-pasting our responses in their DMs so we can “sit with the message and everyone can get to them when they can” rather than it being a session with an actual back and forth and was asked if I was okay with that. I honestly said no, because this was supposed to be a situation where she and I sat down and discussed what she said in the server, not a back and forth message relay where the conversation got dragged out for days or weeks or however long it was going to take. I said if she was serious about meeting me halfway on this, she needed to be able to sit down and actually talk.

H copy-pasted my response to LR and came back that she had backed out of the conversation, which part of me had expected from the beginning—even though all I wanted from this sit down was for her to understand how hurtful the antisemitic comments were and an apology.

These comments that were made in the server are not a secret. It’s pretty well known what was said and again, these were all on record, not privately made in some DM. She has still not owned up to the comments she said, nor has she ever apologized for them. She has ignored message after message about them and blocked more people than I can count. Many of the people defending her when the discourse begins have also been messaged about the comments she’s said and also either block people or ignore the messages completely and refuse to acknowledge them.

Now, this being said, in the most recent conversation about fandom racism, someone brought up the post that was made reducing users on ao3 to faceless, nameless numbers without saying who they were, what they had done, and how they were specifically contributing to the problem of racism in this fandom. They made the comparison of other situations like HR looking at pay stats to see how to fire and included “Nazis, capitalists, and colonizers.”

This is not an invalid argument. There have been other Jews in the fandom who specifically voiced feeling uncomfortable for the exact same reason. However, another person, LT, decided to specifically make a post calling the OP out and drag them for having the audacity to liken it to the Shoah (which, mind you, this person is not Jewish nor did they decide to capitalize Shoah or the Holocaust as they should have). She received a reply saying, “you’re offended by antisemitism? Here’s LR’s (someone LT has agreed with multiple times over racism in fandom) track record of antisemitic comments” which outlined everything I delved into previously.

LT said that they were “unaware of this incident until a couple days ago” but agreed that it was an upsetting display of casual dismissal of Jewish pain and hoped that LR had apologized. She was then called out for being aware of it and still continuing to reblog LR’s posts even after knowing about the comments and was linked to my post clarifying that LR had not apologized and refused a discussion about it, to which LT said that she had gotten “quite a different version outlined in the post linked and corroborated by a third party” and “felt uncomfortable” making a value judgement, insinuating that I was not being truthful about my side of the story.

I messaged LT off-anon and said that I was not lying nor over-exaggerating about what had happened in the server or about the following discussion about trying to broker a conversation with LR, and was immediately blocked by her. I am also not the only Jew who has sent her messages about this topic, only to have their messages ignored.

Now, am I surprised that I was immediately blocked after voicing my issues with what LT had said in that post? No.

She has a history of making antisemitic comments, most of which happened during the brunt of the Israel/Palestine discussion happening, which included statements such as “You cannot be considered indigenous if you hold a position of power”, that, despite having been displaced for 2,000 years, the Jewish diaspora was “integrated” into their respective communities (a wholly untrue statement), as well as linked to and promoted a website with extremely antisemitic articles including one about “Spartan Jews” and how Israeli Jews are violent to “send messages to their deprived self-esteem” that they won’t be victims again. Half of the comments on the site’s front page included such hits as “Death to all Jews” and “Wow, I had no idea this was happening—I guess it is true that Jews control the world and the mass media.” This website was repeated in multiple posts as “unbiased” and “a good resource” for other people to truly know what was going on.

Jewish dissent on the content of some posts and that website went unacknowledged and dismissed.

Being that LT is a relatively big user in the TOG fandom, her posts got circulated frequently. Seeing things like that touted as unbiased was extremely triggering for me and multiple Jews in this fandom that I’ve spoken to.

Now, the reason I made this post in particular was because I have seen a lot of echoing of the sentiment: “no matter how much you disagree with their sentiment, aligning yourself with racists is...well aligning yourself with racists.”

This statement NEEDS to become intersectional. If we are criticizing the work of people because of who they hold company with, why does that end at racism? If we are going to have a discussion about racism in this fandom, why are we letting it come from people who have openly said antisemitic things, people who have stood by them and supported them in silence, and people who have silenced Jewish voices speaking up about this issue.

These are not separate issues. This is a really good post regarding the white washing of Jews in social justice discussion and it comes full circle into the medical experimentation discussion. Jews were not seen as white during the Holocaust. The Nazis were trying to cleanse the Aryan race because they did not view Jews as white. They experimented on them because they did not view them as white and, thus, disposable.

Every Jewish diasporic community is still vulnerable. Even though the US has half the world’s Jews, over 50% of the religiously based hate crimes are consistently anti-Jewish even though Jews make up 2% of the population. Chinese Jews are still holding their holiday celebrations in secret due to government crackdowns. The attempted genocide of Beta Israel was less than 50 years ago. Across the Middle East and North Africa, Jewish communities are barely hanging on after centuries of attempted destruction. These are not just Jewish issues but racial issues as well because when people make the sweeping generalization of “Jew” and they only mean white-passing Ashkenazi Jews, it erases so much of our community.

I absolutely agree that this fandom needs to have a discussion about race and portrayal in fic and what we can do better moving forward—and I want to see that done—but we also need to acknowledge what so many people starting this discussion have said and the marginalized groups they have hurt along the way. I see these posts come across my dashboard and know exactly who they're coming from and what they think of people like me. If we are going to say, “No matter how much you disagree with their sentiment, aligning yourself with racists is aligning yourself with racists,” then we NEED to be saying, “If you are aligning yourself with antisemites, you’re aligning yourself with antisemites.”

We all need to move forward. But that means moving forward together. Jews included.

[thechangeling]

I had a question for you, and if you would be willing to answer I would greatly appreciate it. Since your last post referenced this, I was wondering if you had any tips on writing Ty specifically, or autistic characters in general? I think that you might have posted on this before, but I couldn’t find it, so I figured I would ask you. Anyway, like I said, if you don’t mind answering that would be wonderful, but if you don’t want to, no hard feelings!

For me I guess it's more intuition like if something just feels right, but that's kind of hard to explain to people so I'm gonna try and put this into words.

I like it when people make an effort to understand Ty's emotions and where he's coming from. I appreciate people taking care of Ty's emotions through the narrative even when it's angsty and treating them as valid. Also putting in autistic traits in a way that doesn't seem forced. Especially more nuanced things like rubbing your neck or running your fingers through your hair. Acknowledge the fact that Ty is pretty smart. I can't stand fics that dumb him down. But don't write him like a super genius who knows everything either.

I wanna see autistic joy. I wanna see Ty getting so happy and excited after finally figuring out the answer to a tough mystery and not being able to hold back his happy stimming. Ty rambling about his special interests to Kit because he trusts him and stimming with Kit's hair and fingers.

I would also like to see autistic anger. Ty getting rightfully pissed and the narrative actually explaining why. Ty losing his shit in ways that aren't pretty and instantly regretting it. Ty getting weighed down by burnout and avoiding Kit because he doesnt have the energy to be social or be around people at all without snapping. Give me Ty trying so hard to tell Kit how he feels despite not being able to find the right words. So he writes letters where he uses other peoples words and quotes to explain.

Address the trauma he has been through! Address the fact that it is just as valid as Kit's trauma!! Acknowledge the shit that his father put him through!!! Explore how complicated that makes his memories of his father especially compared to Ty's siblings. Acknowledge the fact that growing up autistic isolates you from everyone else and forces you to constantly compromise.

Show me Ty loving Kit but also being jealous of him for not having to deal with the ableism that Ty does. Show me Ty being strong but still vulnerable and not invincible. Show me Ty being afraid of messing up with Kit and violating social boundaries and being afraid Kit might not say anything because of his past trauma even when his feelings are hurt.

I don't think allistic writers should be writing internalized ableism, but you can write about how the opinions of others affect him. Don't infantalize him compared to the other characters. If the others are drinking, let him drink. If the others are swearing let him swear. If the others are talking about it having sex then let him do the same. Autistics don't really flirt in my experience, at least not traditionally. But we usually end up smiling more and touching the other person or trying to be around them a lot.

Explore the intersectionality of Ty being queer and autistic. Or maybe don't if you're straight idk. This will probably require further research.

Autistic people acquire new special interests over time. I don't think he'll drop Sherlock yet because he's pretty invested but he might add a new one. You can have tons of special interests at once actually. I currently have five.

Look up theory of mind and how autistic people lack it. Think about how Ty will perceive everyone's actions if he assumes everyone knows what he knows. Maybe show Ty going non verbal after going through a lot of stress and using pictures or a text to voice app to communicate.

Ty listening to other music besides classical! He uses it to calm down and that's valid but I don't like the implication that autistic people only like soft or slow music. That's not true! I personally love heavy metal and alt rock. I lowkey headcanon Ty as a Queen fan idk.

I can't think of anything else but if other autistics wanna add on then go for it. But my final thought is just let him be autistic. Let him stim, let him be blunt, let him be overwhelmed, let him feel music with his entire being, let him have stim toys and comfort objects but don't have him be just his autism. Let him talk about and show interest in other things besides his special interests, let him show his personality, let him make jokes, show him being a shadowhunter. Also let him have a connection to his sexuality! I swear I've seen so many fanfics where Ty talks about being not straight only in relation to his love for Kit or not at all and acts like it doesnt matter. This bothers me a lot. It does matter! Even when you're autistic.

If you have any questions you can always ask me as long as you're respectful.

[mxbitters]

Ironic of you to use a Suppressive Persons tactic like Shinigami Eyes (created by the rapist Laurelai Bailey, no less) and accuse radical feminists of wanting "to shelter themselves so that they never have to learn anything, never have to escape that comfort zone and never have to really question if maybe there’s something they could be doing better." That's you. You're also not gay as in, you're literally attracted to the opposite sex, just as bioessentialist as your conservative parents.

okay listen first of all, i am not in the mood to get into a massive fucking debate right now because i just got out of my last class and have two late midterm papers and an academic alert to take care of never mind my personal well-being.

that being said, you’re making a ridiculous amount of assumptions here.  

first of all, you need to stop assuming every trans person knows everything about every other trans person.  i use shinigami eyes because it’s the only thing like that that we can rely on.  i don’t know who laurelai bailey is.  i’ve just done some general research and honestly i can’t speak to anything that has happened but the way people are going about talking about it bothers me.  you guys are using whatever’s going on with her as some way to get back at trans people and conflate us into one thing instead of like, actually give any victims the respect they deserve to be given.  and by the looks of it this is an issue that’s been a problem within the trans community so quite frankly if there’s some alternative to shinigami eyes that does the same thing i’d happily start using that, but if there isn’t you can’t get mad at people for using the resource that’s accessible to us when most of us have absolutely no idea who the creator is in the first place.

second, in regard to the comfort zone point i was talking about the concept of intersectionality in feminism.  my future career choice is giving me the room and freedom to really explore a lot of issues related to different perspectives on feminism among other movements in an academic setting and i realize that is a privilege but through this i’ve realized there’s so much room for solidarity between so many different movements in order to achieve goals that will help everyone.  but the thing we need to do is address the preconceived notions we all have about different people and the issues different groups face.  i’m not afraid to say i’ve spent the majority of my life ignorant to a multitude of issues i didn’t face in my own life.  but the only way i’ve been able to change and get better was through taking the time to address those issues and learn.  i say get out of your comfort zone because you terfs seem to close yourself off and exclude communities you don’t understand instead of maybe considering you could learn something.  i’ve read things from radical feminist movements.  but god forbid you read something from a trans movement.  solidarity is such an important thing in getting things done but through forming your entire ideology around the problem being your ideology’s incredibly flawed definition of “men,” you build your movement based around exclusion.  i could say a lot of things about that but i’ll just repeat what i said earlier that it’s saddening.  because that can’t be healthy.  we have groups like that in the trans community and i feel bad for them, too.  what i was saying wasn’t meant to be an attack on you as people, it was me pointing out some serious flaws in a movement that seems to refuse to acknowledge any new ideas.

okay and for your final point where you decide to personally attack me and whatever perception you have of my sexuality.  stop.  i call myself gay and queer because that best describes my sexuality.  i am not exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, i am not your definition of heterosexual because even if i did identify as a woman i am not exclusively attracted to amab people.  in fact, my partner and i are both afab and nonbinary and i couldn’t be happier.  you of all people should know what it feels like to have your sexuality assumed and practically decided for you by some outside force.  you know how terrible that can feel.  to be treated like absolute shit for loving whoever you love, to be told that however you exist is unacceptable, disgusting, even.  that constant erasure and silencing as if you’ve never fucking spoken for yourself in your entire life?  that’s how you treat us every day.  i know i’m not the only trans person you’ve spoken to like this and god i feel for every other person who has had to deal with this shit.  i say i feel bad for you people and you say i’m indoctrinated into some cult and misconstrue something as central to me as my sexuality as yet another “gotcha” moment.  it’s absolutely obscene.

when i made that post i didn’t ask for every terf to show up and declare their opinion on who i am as a person on and offline, i didn’t ask anybody to come on my blog and decide my fucking sexuality for me, or psychoanalyze me based off whatever image you have in your head of my family life, the list just keeps going but the point is i didn’t ask.  we could’ve had a productive conversation but you instead shut it down because i said something you didn’t want to hear.

[plumrabbit]

DA Fandom and moving forward - Calling In vs. Calling Out

Hi everyone,

As a PoC member of the DA fandom, I felt I have been quiet for long enough on the issues that have been presented recently. I am not here to argue against or on behalf of any individual or group, I am only here to present some information that I hope will be helpful moving forward. This is a long post, but it’s my hope that if you read it and want to help contribute to making this place better for everyone, then you will be willing to try to put what is said here into practice.

Since I am a relatively small blog, I wanted to start with a little personal introduction that will segue into the topic at hand. My name is Liz (you can call me Jade too, that’s part of my middle name), and I am a mixed race, “ambiguously brown”, aspec person from Canada. I grew up around mostly other immigrant families, attended predominantly non-white schools that were run by mostly white admins, and completed my degrees at a very white university in a field that does not have much racial diversity. I have experienced racism first-hand many times including, but not limited to, name-calling/slurs, fetishization/exotification, being followed by staff, people second-guessing my name, jokes about hurting/killing people of my race, etc. as well as witnessing racism directed at my friends and peers. I know exactly what it’s like to be exhausted and feel unsafe or othered.  There is, however, one thing I need to point out about the multitude of instances of racism I’ve experienced - most of them were caused by ignorance, and not malice. Yes there are absolute assholes out there, but personally I can count those people I’ve encountered on one hand (I am not speaking for everyone, though). The vast majority of racism, bigotry and general harmful acts come from a place of ignorance, particularly on left-leaning tumblr (to clarify, this discussion is centered around well-meaning people and not the actual lost causes). When I say ignorance, I don’t mean a lack of education or intelligence, I mean not being able to see or understand an issue from another person’s perspective. It’s not quite the same as empathy either (where empathy means you are able to feel another person’s emotions), but fighting ignorance does require empathy. It also requires knowledge on the context of the specific situation, and that I believe is the crux of the problem.  I think the main reason why this is issue is particularly prevalent in the DA fandom is a result of the too-close-to-reality-to-ignore inspirations that have been confirmed by the devs. Yes, it’s fiction, but there are also a lot of people that see themselves (mis)represented in the themes and characters. And what one person sees as disrespectful, another person may not see at all. This can come full circle, too, for example: one person sees themselves and their trauma represented in a character, another person sees their race misrepresented in the same character. Person 1 uses the character as a comfort character or coping strategy. Person 2 thinks using that character in certain situations is disrespectful. Neither one sees the other’s perspective.  This is where intersectionality starts to come into play, and requires empathy and effort to address the intentions and emotions of the other person. Perhaps person 1 is LGBTQ+ and has been traumatized by being as such, and uses Dorian as a character to explore their trauma. Perhaps person 2 is Brown, and racism towards their people is their trigger, and thinks person 1 did not do Brown representation justice in their creative works.  Looking at this more specifically, person 1 may have put Dorian in sexual situations. Person 2 feels that the way it was conveyed was fetishist or exotified. Person 2 doesn’t know person 1′s intentions. Person 1 is not aware of certain descriptions that are racist (e.g. using food to describe a PoC’s skin tone). Perhaps person 1 was self-inserting and wanted to feel desirable on their own terms, but this gave person 2 that squick factor.  Now person 2 wants to address this issue, and I think this is where a call-in (not a call-out) would be appropriate. Here is a good infographic that compares the two: 

(Original source)

Note that there is quite a large difference in the language used. Going back to the above example, person 2 could privately message person 1 asking them why they chose to represent Dorian the way they did, with specific examples, and using call-in language (and I’m going to get back to this in a minute). 

The point of this post and infographic isn’t meant to tell marginalized groups how they should be bringing up issues (though it is a good guide if you are concerned about being polite, particularly to a first time offender), it’s intended to demonstrate to people unintentionally participating in harmful behaviour what a call-out vs. call-in looks like. For PoC and other marginalized groups, yes it does take emotional labour to use call-in language and to try to understand someone that wounded you (here is a good read that incorporates the concept of emotional labour for call-ins, and discusses asking yourself if you are ready to do so). For the people who have unintentionally hurt a marginalized individual or group, please understand that someone calling you in is not an attack, it’s a chance to explain why you expressed something the way you did. 

That being said, we may have reached another hurdle. What if you call someone in, and the person called in does not want to discuss the fact that they were inserting their personal trauma? I think this is where things start to get a bit messy, but I am of the opinion that if you’ve unintentionally triggered someone else’s trauma through ignorance present in your work, you owe it to them to at the very least mention that you were inserting your trauma, without having to bring up specifics (anyone is allowed to set boundaries). From there, the discussion can be hopefully be opened up to learning from each other, and reaching a consensus. Sometimes that consensus requires the creator to edit or remove their work. As an addendum, if you are a creator that unintentionally hurt someone with your work that didn’t have an ulterior personal motivation, it’s your responsibility to understand why what you did was wrong, apologize, remove the work and do better next time. I know some people cherish their OCs, but you are allowed to change your perspective and make adjustments to your character without erasing them entirely. Now we’ve reached another potential obstacle - what if an offender doesn’t respond to your call-in? First of all, ask yourself, did you actually call them in, or did you attack them? Here is a good opinion piece from a Black professor on this matter. I’d like to clarify that I am not trying to tone police, I am speaking as someone that used to go ham on ignorant people on Facebook and Reddit, and has since changed their tactics and has even gotten through to Trump supporters (some of this stems from my spiritual growth as well, but that is not the point here).  There is another issue to address here now as well - what if you have tried, repeatedly, to call someone in and they just don’t change their behaviour? Alright, then it’s probably time to call them out. But again, ask yourself, did you truly try to get through to them? If so, well, at the end of the day, some people are, unfortunately, lost causes. In summary, a call-in is meant to come from a place of wanting to help someone who has seemingly gone astray, because you are worried about their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours towards a marginalized group. You know that if they made a mistake it isn’t them, isn’t their heart, and you want them to be able to understand why what they did hurt others, and give them the chance to correct themselves. It comes from a place of love and acceptance, because you don’t want your friends to harbour negative beliefs.  Finally, I want to give a real example of this in action. My cousin is a photographic artist, and was recently called in to discuss the nature of one of her pieces. Her subjects are usually people, and they come from a wide variety of backgrounds. To help support BLM (she does a lot of work to help fight racism in general), she auctioned off one of her pieces. The subject of the piece happened to be a Black woman. She was called in by Black members of her art community to discuss how people bidding on an art piece that featured a person from a marginalized group perpetuated the ogling and monetization of Black people. She gave a response that acknowledged that her piece did perpetuate this issue, because she wanted to raise awareness of this historical harm, and recognized that her intention was ignorant of this perspective. The Black community also acknowledged that the piece itself was not harmful in any way, only that the surrounding issue that they were painfully aware of needed to be brought to light. The auction went ahead, and the piece sold for ~$1000, all of which was donated to BLM.  I think as a fandom we should be cognizant of when a work itself is harmful, or when the intention is harmful. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don’t. Both are talking points, and we should not be afraid to discuss them, but this requires respect from all parties. We also do need to be able to recognize what is strictly fiction, versus what has real-world impacts. My askbox is always open and my DMs are open to mutuals if you would like anything clarified or expanded upon. Or, if you’d just like to discuss a topic, vent, or have any questions about my own beliefs, you are welcome to reach out. I am happy to discuss anything, as long as there is mutual respect. 

[babsaros]

Ohhhhhh, I take a big deep breath. Okay. so. 

“If you think the patriarchy is this simple, then you're categorically wrong. Gender is made up. Thats something we need to square away. Its a social construct, which was made up, with different cultural and religious interpretations. This type of simplification is almost (not quite because it at least respects people's identities and change) as silly as terfs who say that 'males hold more power control and influence than females.' While statistically accurate, they both ignore the experiences of trans people.”

I genuinely don’t know how else to explain to you that the definition of a patriarchy is a societal system where men are seen as a societal class with more inherent worth and thus power than women. That, yes, there will be outliers and edge cases and exceptions, but that is the system our society was based on and thus it affects our government, economy, culture, and sex, etc as a whole. That, yes, even the weakest least productive man is still seen as superior to his female peers by misogynistic institutions and employers. The lived experiences of trans people do not factor into how the most vitriolic transphobes see gender norms. At no point have I suggested I don’t think that gender is a construct, and I have in fact been critiquing the systems that uphold gender norms, mainly patriarchy. 

'trans men are specifically not perceived as men by transphobes' They aren't percieved as women either.

OK, so you say. My full statement was that they are not perceived as Trans Men. A Trans Man does not exist to a transphobe, but a Trans Woman is a bogeyman they’ve heard a million horrible stories about. 

Transphobic parents often refer to their trans daughters as 'son'. Do you think this means they see them as men? Or do you understand that trans people are often degendered and othered, not treated as their birth sex. 

Yes, I have been explicitly stating that transphobes see transwomen as men. Vice versa, transmen are seen as daughters and women. They’re transphobic, the very definition of the word is not acknowledging and respecting someone’s gender. This is not a gotcha. 

“I've read everything you've written. Its right there for people to see, I am not arguing that trans women do NOT face multiple levels of oppression, and i am only addressing what I find incorrect about what you said.”

I feel like I already broke down why your points are an inaccurate description of intersectional transphobia necessitating the term transandrophobia, but let’s go through them again. You list being seen as mere breedingstock, or mentally/physically inferior to men, or being subject to corrective rape and domestice violence as examples of misogyny that transmen face. I would correct that only by pointing out that transfeminine people are also subject to those forms of sexual assault and abuse, and are more frequent targets who often get turned away when they seek help specifically for identifying as transfem, where an AFAB person presenting any way could be seen as a far more sympathetic victim by those same transphobes, because transmisogyny is more normalized in cissociety. 

Then you try to argue that there are multiple distinct forms of transphobia that affect trans men. Now, I already clarified that being a “rude caricature” is an accusation of autogynephilia and an insult to how well someone passes against a trans woman, and that no transmen has been accused of autoandrophilia and manipulative perversion in the same way. I also clarified that no, by and large, most cis people are not worried about their children being molested by trans men the same way they fearmonger about transwomen in public restrooms and drag queens at libraries. 

And again, you’re ignoring the most important word in this whole discussion: Intersectionality. A man does not have to put in the same effort for basic respect that a woman does, and that goes doubly for transwomen who also have to struggle against transphobic stigma. A trans man may contend with transphobia in his life, and have to fight to be seen as a man at all, but he will not face hatred for being a Trans* Man specifically. 

“Trans men being deemed to not have the strength to commit assault and molestation its not an advantage btw, its why they have the highest rate of sa, and molestation performed on them.”

This is something I’ve had to debunk before and I’m extremely disappointed to have to do again. 

1. “In 2023, 50% of gun homicides were of Black trans women.” (everytown 2024) https://www.everytown.org/press/new-everytown-data-on-transgender-homicides-reveals-concentration-in-the-south/

2. “Transgender women are substantially more likely to be murdered than transgender men, and transgender women of color are murdered much more frequently than white transgender women.” (westbrook 2023) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08912432231171172

3. And according to the 2023 Trans Murder Monitoring report, 300+ trans people were murdered, and 94% of those people were transwomen, who are AGAIN at significantly higher risk of being assaulted or forced into survival sex work because of transmisogyny. https://transrespect.org/en/trans-murder-monitoring-2023/

A big thing to consider with these surveys and statistics is that they can only measure data of people who 1. Are/were openly transfeminine and 2. Also came forward about their sexual assaults, both things that carry an incredible amount of stigma and would be daunting to tell close loved ones, let alone the authorities that often commit transphobic hate crimes themself. Parroting a line you heard about transmen having higher assault stats perpetuates the very idea that they’re easy targets and that AFAB people are inherent victims and AMAB people aren’t and can’t be assaulted, in the same way that TERFS claiming transwomen have biological advantages in sports perpetuates the idea that women will always be weaker and inferior.

"What do you think masculinity and femininity are seen as? What is seen as masculinity, is a misogynistic patriarchal norm." 

This is an egregious misunderstanding of my original point, and the way TERFS view masculinity. Masculinity and Femininity are sets of attributes we have attached via aesthetics to a constructed binary gender system. Having a beard is considered a masculine trait yes, but on its own has no moral connotation in society at large. Some people view facial hair as trustworthy, others as deceitful. It is not expected nor enforced that men Must have facial hair. It is enforced that women Do Not have facial hair. 

The misogynistic patriarchal norms are present in the hearts of the organizers of these “safe” spaces, who have not done the work to deconstruct their notions of gender and presentation, who have internalized the idea that Men = stronger and more dangerous than Women ALWAYS. Trans people who are rejected from these spaces are not being rejected for apparent masculinity, they are being rejected for the way they fail at gender norms. A transwoman is rejected for not performing womanhood correctly, whether it’s something she can change or not. A trans man is not being rejected for having facial hair or simply being muscular, he’s rejected because all men are potential predators, and he was not perceived enough like a non-threatening woman. That’s what they’re supposed to be, men are supposed to be aggressive toward women, who are supposed to be submissive. The solution is not to normalize and praise features of masculinity, but instead to deconstruct gender norms so no one can be measured against them and found lacking. A beard should be a completely neutral accessory on anyone that wants to grow one.

'transadrophobia” is identical to plain old transphobia and misogyny, So is transmisogyny. They're words to describe the intersection. You claim the definition is an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, which is almost the exact same thing i’m explaining, so why are we still trying to call it transandrophobia. It’s transphobia. It’s misogyny Why do you think we need the terms biphobia, aphobia and lesbophobia then? Its all just homophobia, no? 

It is specifically not an intersection. They do not overlap. Trans men can be affected by both, but because they’re not women it's not transmisogyny, and because men can’t be oppressed under a patriarchy, it's not “transandrophobia” either. It’s transphobia /and/ misogyny, and there is NOT a need for a new term when it’s not an intersection. Biphobia/aphobia/lesbophobia specifically refer to unique forms of hate those demographics are subject to. Those words aren’t referring to an intersection of oppression, but narrow down the specific homophobia on display because it is useful to talk about how allosexual queer people can be aphobic, how gay men can be lesbophobic, how heterosexual couples dehumanize bisexual people and reduce them to hook-ups. There is no need for a new, inaccurately synthesized term. 

Could it be that we need words to describe the historically forgotten experience of certain minorities who until recently, were so forgotten about that they weren't even included in the law as to exist? and once it became more known that it was possible for trans men to exist, they went from being 1:7 proportion reference to trans women, to 1:1?

By “certain” minorities”, do you mean Trans Men? What does the introduction of the term “transandrophobia” contribute to the legal plight toward trans rights? Will the introduction of the term convince transphobic legislators to include Trans Men in their abortion bans, instead of simply referring to them as women? Does the term succinctly point out this dearth of transmasculine representation in media? Like, hey, I’ll concede a little and not even argue about if there's more transfem or transmasc rep, as long as you acknowledge that the vast majority of that rep is stereotypically offensive and created to mock or fetishize their existence 

Are there any widely known specific slurs with heavy sexual connotation about transmen the same way there are multiple slurs for transwomen? zippertits, cuntboys, pussyboy fakeboys, girlmutt and bitchboy Do people throw them around with the same casual air they talk about "traps" and "sissies" and "femboys"? yes. Especially the stuff about boys with 'cunts/pussies' also very pedophilic.

Zippertits is a specific slur for the look of top surgery scars, not just the idea of a transman existing. Funnily enough, “cuntboy” “pussyboy” “fakeboy” and “bitchboy” are validating in masculinity to the point of reclamation for more than one of these terms, where slurs like “femboy” “sissyboy” and “shemale” contradict a claim to femininity, specifically target the trans*fem identity, and are still highly controversial to reclaim. References to cunts and pussies is incredibly misogynistic, and infantilizing yes, but does not carry the same implication that someone is disgusting merely for identifying as a man. I did put some of these slurs into Google Trends for shits and giggles. What does the data tell you?

 I’m pretty sure you just made “girlmutt” up and i’m ngl that one kinda fucks.

If a transphobe correctively rapes a transman, is the goal to "correct" him yes. Corrective rape is very common in trans community into a more traditionally masculine man, no, into a more traditionally feminine woman.

Okay, whoa, how did you not get the point here? The goal of corrective rape in transmen is to deny their transgenderism and force them to identify as women again, yeah. The goal of corrective rape in transwoman is to reinforce one’s own place in the power structure over her, and shame the transwoman until she ceases to exist. Forcing her back in the closet would be good, forcing her to take her life would be better. 

transwomen are subject to transmisogyny, shamed for taking a woman’s place and then *again* for failing at being a conventional woman. Shamed for daring to think they could be as good as men, and then again for failing at their one purpose, and for not being a proper man.

No, there is no shame associated with wanting to be a man. Transmen are shamed for being women. Women have one purpose and their lives are devoid of meaning without that purpose, but they also should not want to be a woman because women are weak helpless things. It makes sense they want to be men, because men are superior in all ways, but they’re just silly women and THAT’S the shameful part. And then, once a transman has decided on this course of action and begun transitioning, their presentation is not as severely scrutinized and policed as a trans woman’s, because a trans woman must be attractive in order to pass, and she must always put in effort to being recognized as feminine and not merely a failure of a man. Again, it is not expected or enforced that a man Must have facial hair, but it is enforced that a woman have none. 

Transmisogyny is intersectional that way. Why are we still here!  "Do you know what intersectionality is? Trans men, being trans men, experience both misogyny and transphobia, and are heavily impacted by patriarchal norms. Their unique identity causes them to face a specific type of oppression. This does not mean that nobody else can relate to certain aspects of their experiences, but other people as a whole do not have the same combination of identities will not experience the same thing."

Again, you are not working with the right definition of intersectionality. Yes, trans men can experience both misogyny and transphobia, but NOT simultaneously. This oppression can also vastly vary due to one’s race or age. We do not need unique words for every combination of identity that must experience their own distinct and separate oppression from every other slightly different combination of identities. There is no need for the term “transandrophobia” in widespread discussion of transphobia.

By calling it “transandrophobia” we obfuscate the root causes of oppression,' Did you know that the term 'misogyny' from the root 'gyne' which referred to a woman who had given birth? Do we exclude trans and single women when we talk about misogyny?

Who told you this? “Misogyny” comes from a greek word, misogunia, referring to a tradition in Ancient Greek Literature akin to how we got the words “comedy” or “tragedy”. Misos meaning hatred, and gunē meaning woman. We do derive the word “gynecology” from the greek word gyne, meaning a woman who had given birth at least once, but “misogyny” has its own etymological origin. Even still, your point doesn’t negate mine, that inventing androphobia as a problem draws attention from deconstructing the patriarchy. 

Trans- trans, andro- man. Phobia- aversion. Now, if you were an idiot, you could put them together to mean the trans 'aversion to men', however logically it means 'aversion to trans men' (aka, the discrimination face by them)

Thanks for the grammar lesson, except that “transandrophobia” does not refer to an intersectional aversion to trans men. As you’re using it, it refers to the separate transphobia and misogyny they can face. I thought we were in agreement about that, but darn.

'we give fuel to genuine Men’s Rights Activists to co-opt our language' Yeah, well done this makes so much sense. You can't use that word because evil people might use a different word related to that word to be bad!  Terfs use the word 'sexism', to be transphobic by your logic we should stop using it?

I think you’re losing the plot a little here. TERFS accuse transwomen of autogynephilia, which, yes we can all agree is a shitty thing to do and a made up allegation. Misogynists and TERFS flock to co-opt the word androphobia and you ignore why for your own comfort. Yes, sometimes words are used as dogwhistles by hate groups. I don’t know what else to tell you? There’s a lot of rhetoric by TERFs that sounds good on its own and gets reblogged by well-meaning trans people who don’t know the full context it was written with. Doesn’t mean it’s just fine, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to distance yourself from that and deconstruct that rhetoric. 

'and let transphobes walk back progress by not standing in solidarity for the most vulnerable in our community and instead arguing that oppression is equal across the board when it explicitly IS NOT and CANNOT BE while we still live under patriarchy.'  That's a theory. One that is not backed by statistics. Trans men face violence, wealth issues, homelessness, social isolation, mental health issues, medical misogyny, lack of representation, sexual assaults, domestic violence and pretty much every aspect of oppression at near equal rates to transfems.

It’s borderline insulting to say I need to back something up with statistics and then not provide any for your own stance. You know why we don’t have statistics on whether trans men or trans women are more affected by poverty, depression, assault, etc? Because cis people do not care to hold those studies. They do not care about our oppression. You mean to tell me you do not see the ways transgender civil liberties are at threat every day in this country? You think these transphobic senators and legislators and judges and cops and doctors and teachers have not become more aggressive, more focused and effective at barring access to transition resources and discouraging gender non-conformity?

'It sounds like a refusal to acknowledge privilege because grouping yourself with the oppressed is less work than standing up for them.' Point out my privilege, i beg of you. I would love to find where it is.

If you are physically perceived as a man, you have privilege. If you identify as a man in a social setting, you have privilege over anyone who does not identify as a man in that setting. If you have been able to begin medically transitioning at all, you have privilege. If you have been able to come out with your preferred pronouns to anyone irl, you have privilege. You cannot decline your privilege by merely not making the decision to wield it to another’s detriment. Even alone in an elevator, a white woman has privilege over a black woman. A gay man has privilege over a woman. Trans men have privilege over women. 

'patriarchy is genuinely Men>Women as a societal structure. That trickles down to affect sex and culture and popular connotations' No. Incorrect. right here this is the issue. Do you think patriarchy is inherent? The patriarchy is CAUSED by sex difference, culture and stereotypes.

A patriarchy is not. Caused? The patriarchy has been cultivated and influences culture, not the other way around. The definition of a patriarchy is a societal class system where men are a societal class with more worth and power than women as a societal class. As a CLASS. On an AVERAGE throughout society. If your argument is that once the patriarchy is dismantled, then there will be a need for the term “transandrophobia” to have discussion around gender, then like. Maybe man! If we ever get there!

“...You don't say a black man experiences "misandrynoir"!! because living in a patriarchy fundamentally means men do not experience oppression based on their gender.”  Because misandry does not exist as a system of oppression. We covered this. Black men experience racism, Black women experience racism and misogyny. trans men experience transphobia AND MISOGYNY. Black men are not targeted by misogyny hence why there is no intersection, trans men are hence why there is.

Yep, misandry not a system of oppression, yep racism and misogyny overlap in misogynoir, nope the transphobia and misogyny that trans men experience does not overlap. You argue that transandrophobia can encompass being rejected from a space for having masculine features, but these features don’t get rejected in the form of misandry toward cis men. If that were true, you would be arguing for the existence of misandrynoir as a concept the same as transandrophobia. Instead, you acknowledge that misandry cannot exist as a system of oppression under patriarchy. So why can you not acknowledge that this is not an overlap of oppression?

Quibbles like this are a waste of time til then. I don't care if you think its a waste of time. Its not to me. You may be unaffected by what I am speaking on, however being a survivor of a cult based explicitly on male superiority, I have difficulty accessing the service necessary for me to recover because i am a trans man. Its sure as shit not just misogyny, because thats what they are there for

Sorry, you were the one that said “arguing over etymology is just stupid”. I won’t ask you to elaborate on your trauma further, though I am mildly confused about what exactly you mean here. Are you referring to services such as therapy, medical intervention, or faith for example, and saying you have been discouraged from accessing these things explicitly because you are a Transman? Are the resources for recovering from your experience in this male-dominated cult being gatekept for cis women only? Would it be easier to access these services if you were transfeminine? Would introducing the authorities in charge of these services to the term “transandrophobia” make them more sympathetic to your struggle? If you care to elucidate, please do. If you can’t, please take some time to reflect on why. 

Maybe also take some time to reflect on why else you might feel rejected and ostracized from a queer-friendly space, besides your physical appearance. Hint: It might have something to do with the way you view and treat other trans people with an eerie similarity to their radfem aunts and chauvinistic fathers.

hey. when cis society is oppressing a trans man, what he is experiencing is. In Fact. misogyny. i'm sorry i know none of us like to be reminded of our agab, and it hurts whenever people perceive you as the wrong gender. but a cis person hate-criming, assaulting, verbally abusing, etc, a trans man is not doing "transandrophobia" because they do not perceive him as a man.

they perceive him as a woman failing at her gender, as a woman who has been seduced and lied to and manipulated because women are so easily led astray, just like it says in the bible. they perceive him as a woman who has been mutilated. they perceive him as a dyke that needs to be fixed. if they are hate-criming him because they *do* perceive him as a man, because he passes well enough they aren't thinking he could be trans, then they're doing so out of homophobia, perceiving him as a gay man, a pervert, a sissy, a danger to children. OR, they are being transphobic but specifically because they think he might be transfeminine instead. when cis society oppresses a trans woman, they are able to do it on multiple levels at once. She's a woman failing at her gender, a dyke that needs to be fixed. Or she's an evil and grotesque crossdressing pervert, a rude caricature, a danger to polite society. she will never be doing enough to escape oppression entirely, no matter if she gets every surgery she can and wears makeup every day and passes perfectly, because she lives under a patriarchy, and she's a woman, so she lives in a panopticon, and HAVING to get surgery and wear make-up to be respected IS oppression, especially if the alternative is being hate-crimed.

trans women (and trans men who pass) are not experiencing "transandrophobia" when a 'queer women and nbs" event turns them away at the door for being too masculine. they are. IN FACT!! experiencing the byproducts of misogyny in a patriarchy!!! where the terfs and coward cis women running those events and occupying those spaces have been taught (sometimes through experience, sometimes by men, sometimes by women) throughout life that men = stronger and more dangerous than women ALWAYS. That they need to protect themselves at all times and always be vigilant. That men and women can't be friends without sexual tension (and so as queer women the mere existence of what they perceive as a "man" is a threat). That women need a separate sports league because they can't possibly compete with someone who has even a little bit "extra" (an unquantifiable amount actually because there isn't a standard range) testosterone. That women should cook and men should fix cars. i promise you, i promise i promise i promise. it's misogyny. like!!! you don't say cis gay men experiences "androphobia", bc that's not a thing!! you sound like fucking mens rights activists guys please! you don't say a black man experiences "misandrynoir"!! because living in a patriarchy fundamentally means men do not experience oppression based on their gender. its not happening. shut the fuck up. stop walking us back to 2014 can we please take a step forward and stop bitching about this. there are genuine issues in the world and i'm frankly sick of people who should be smarter than that needing to be gently hand-held through this fucking explanation for the millionth time and still stomping their feet.

[96thdayofrage]

Instead of sharing in the outrage of Nia’s brutal murder, they came with fury for being tagged in a post that they felt challenged their own perceived feminist accomplishments. There were grand displays of defensiveness, demands that they be acknowledged for all the things they had done for black people in the past, and a terrifying lashing out that included racial slurs and doxing.

The fragility of these women was not a surprise to me. In a crucial moment of showing up for our marginalized community, there was more concern about their feelings and ego as opposed to the fight forward for women as a whole. What could have been a much-needed and integral display of solidarity and true intersectionality quickly became a live play-by-play of the toxicity that white-centered feminism can bring to the table of activism.

It is the type of behavior that rests under the guise of feminism only as long as it is comfortable, only as long it is personally rewarding, only as long as it keeps "on brand." But if the history of this movement taught us anything, it is that intersectionality in feminism is vital. We cannot forget the ways that suffragettes dismissed the voices of black women, sending them to the backs of their marches, only for black activists like Ida B. Wells and Anna Julia Cooper to make major moves while fighting for the vote in tandem with their fight for rights as black people—ultimately shifting the shape of this country. If there is not the intentional and action-based inclusion of women of color, then feminism is simply white supremacy in heels.

Going up against liberal progressive white feminists who refuse to let down their guard of “ultimate liberation” to actually learn from women of color—who have been fighting this fight with grit and grace for generations—is the most straining part being a black feminist activist. Still, as disheartening as the actions of many of these women who were "called in" became, my highest hope is that this bizarre episode serves as a lesson, a dissection if you will, of what toxic white feminism actually looks like. Let's take a dive into a few of the items in The Toxic White Feminism Playbook:

TONE POLICING

When women of color begin to cry out about their pain, frustration, and utter outrage with the system that is continuing to allow our men to be murdered, our babies to be disregarded, and our livelihood to be dismissed, we are often met with white women who tell us perhaps we should “say things a little nicer” if we want to be respected and heard.

SPIRITUAL BYPASSING

The easiest way for white women to skirt around the realities of racism is to just “love and light it away”. When confronted with ways they have offended a marginalized group with their words or actions, they immediately start to demand unity and peace; painting those they harmed as aggressive, mean, or divisive.

WHITE SAVIOR COMPLEX

Many white women insist that there is no way they could be part of the problem because of their extensive resume of what they’ve “done for you people.” Instead of listening to what the women of color are trying to express, they instead whip out the Nice Things I’ve Done For Black People In The Past, which often includes everything from “says hi to the black man next door every single morning” to “saved a black child through adoption and treats them just as nicely as my white children.”

This is the most common of all. White women get so caught up in how they feel in a moment of black women expressing themselves that they completely vacuum the energy, direction, and point of the conversation to themselves and their feelings. They start to explain why race is hard for them to talk about, what they think would be a better solution to the topic at hand, and perhaps what women of color can do to make it more palatable.

As these things play out over and over again, it is made painfully obvious that many white women believe that the worst thing that can happen to them is to be called a racist. Let me be clear, it is not. Seeing your child gunned down in the street by the police unjustly is much worse, being turned away for medical care due to race and underlying biases by medical staff, resulting in death, is much worse, being harassed by authorities only to be charged yourself instead is much worse.

But even moments of explicit dehumanization to the black community haven’t been able to rally the majority of liberal white women to join us in our fight for racial justice. I've learned through my work that white women seem to only digest race issues when it is reframed in the light of (white) feminism. So I often have to lay it out this way:

When you try to exclude yourself from the conversation of race by saying things like “I don’t see color,” or “I married a black man and have brown kids,” that's just as irrational as a man saying there is no way he could be sexist or misogynistic because he has a daughter.

When you seek to not be lumped into the conversation about oppressive systems against marginalized people, because you view yourself as woke, you are essentially screaming “not all men.”

When you try to rationalize police brutality by saying “but black people also kill black people,” you’re coming in with the same argument that men have when they say “she shouldn’t have worn that skirt, she deserves to be raped”.

When you walk into black or brown spaces and “suggest” how they can more aptly reach white people on the topic of race you are basically mansplaining, only now it's whitesplaining how people of color should approach their own activism.

When you begin to feel defensive about the conversation of race, demanding explanations, it is like a man walking into a women’s space saying: “Make me feel more comfortable in this moment, even though the point of this space is sorting out how I make you feel uncomfortable everyday in multiple ways.”

So what does allyship actually look like? Accepting the reality of this country's dynamics. White skin yields white privilege and an ally is willing to use their privilege to fight with and for those who are marginalized. Allyship means voting for elected officials who have a track record of ensuring the most marginalized among us are heard and advocated for. Allyship means using your sphere of influence whether it be your dining room table or the boardroom of your company to call out racist actions and ideals. Allyship means uplifting the voices and experiences of people of color so that we are not continuously drowned out and ignored.

"Many liberal white woman have an immediate reaction of defense when someone challenges their intentions."

What makes allyship so hard for most? Many liberal white woman have an immediate reaction of defense when someone challenges their intentions. And it is in that precise moment they need to stop and realize they are actually part of the problem. It is never the offender who gets to decide when they've offended someone. If you feel yourself dismissing the words or experiences of people of color—because you think they're "overreacting" or because you "didn't know" or because "it has nothing to do with race"—it's often due to your ego, not rationale. Listen and learn, instead.

Dr. Robin DiAngelo, a white woman sociologist who studies critical discourse, reminds us in her new book White Fragility that “the key to moving forward is what we do with our discomfort. We can use it as a door out—blame the messenger and disregard the message. Or we can use it as a door in by asking, Why does this unsettle me? What would it mean for me if this were true?”

Racism is as American as pie. In order for the feminist movement to truly be progressive and intersectional, white women must face this fact and begin to take on their load of work. We are long overdue to dismantle this system, which, if it is not intentionally and aggressively addressed, will defeat us all in the end.

[whitehotharlots]

Privilege Theory is popular because it is conservative

Privilege theory, as a formal academic thing, has been around at least since 1989, when Peggy McIntosh published the now-seminal essay “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Even within academic cultural studies, however, privilege theory was pretty niche until about a decade ago--it’s not what you’d call intellectually sound (McIntosh’s essay contains zero citations), and its limitations as an analytical frame are pretty obvious. I went through a cultural studies-heavy PhD program in the early twenty teens and I only heard it mentioned a handful of times. If you didn’t get a humanities degree, odds are it didn’t enter your purview until 2015 or thereabouts.

This poses an obvious question: how could an obscure and not particularly groundbreaking academic concept become so ubiquitous so quickly? How did such a niche (and, frankly, weird and alienating) understanding of racial relations become so de rigeur that companies that still utilize slave labor and still produce skin whitening cream are now all but mandated to release statements denouncing it? 

Simply put, the rapid ascent of privilege theory is due to the fact that privilege theory is fundamentally conservative. Not in cultural sense, no. But if we understand conservatism as an approach to politics that seeks first and foremost to maintain existing power structures, then privilege theory is the cultural studies equivalent of phrenology or Austrian economics. 

This realization poses a second, much darker question: how did a concept as regressive and unhelpful as privilege become the foundational worldview among people who style themselves as progressives, people whose basic self-understanding is grounded in a belief that they are working to address injustice? Let’s dig into this:

First, let’s go down a well-worn path and establish the worthlessness of privilege as an analytical lens. We’ll start with two basic observations: 1) on the whole, white people have an easier time existing within these United States than non-white people, and 2) systemic racism exists, at least to the extent that non-white people face hurdles that make it harder for them to achieve safety and material success.

I think a large majority of Americans would agree with both of these statements--somewhere in the ballpark of 80%, including many people you and I would agree are straight-up racists. They are obvious and undeniable, the equivalent to saying “politicians are corrupt” or “good things are good and bad things are bad.” Nothing about them is difficult or groundbreaking.

As simplistic as these statements may be, privilege theory attempts to make them the primary foreground of all understandings of social systems and human interaction. Hence the focus on an acknowledgement of privilege as the ends and means of social justice. We must keep admitting to privilege, keep announcing our awareness, again and again and again, vigilance is everything, there is nothing beyond awareness.

Of course, acknowledging the existence of inequities does nothing to actually address those inequities. Awareness can serve as an important (though not necessarily indispensable) precondition for change, but does not lead to change in and of itself. 

I’ve been saying this for years but the point still stands: those who advocate for privilege theory almost never articulate how awareness by itself will bring about change. Even in the most generous hypothetical situation, where all human interaction is prefaced by a formal enunciation of the raced-based power dynamics presently at play, this acknowledgement doesn’t actually change anything. There is never a Step Two. 

Now, some people have suggested Step Twos. But suggestions are usually ignored, and on the rare occasions they are addressed they are dismissed without fail, often on grounds that are incredibly specious and dishonest. To hit upon another well-worn point, let’s look at the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. The majority of Sanders’ liberal critics admit that the senator’s record on racial justice is impeccable, and that his platform would have done substantially more to materially address racial inequities than that being proffered by any of his opponents. That’s all agreed upon, yet we are told that none of that actually matters. 

Sanders dropped out of the race nearly 3 months ago, yet just this past week The New York Times published yet another hit piece explaining that while his policies would have benefitted black people, the fact that he strayed from arbitrarily invoked rhetorical standards meant he was just too problematic to support.  

The piece was written by Sidney Ember, a Wall Street hack who cites anonymous finance and health insurance lobbyists to argue that financial regulation is racist. Ember, like most other neoliberals, has been struggling to reconcile her vague support for recent protests with the fact that she is paid to lie about people who have tried to fix things. Now that people are forcefully demanding change, the Times have re-deployed her to explain why change is actually bad even though it’s good.  

How does one pivot from celebrating the fact that black people will not be receiving universal healthcare to mourning racially disproportionate COVID death rates? They equivocate. They lean even harder on rhetorical purity, dismissing a focus on policy as a priori blind to race. Bernie never said “white privilege.” Well, okay, he did, but he didn’t say it in the right tone or often enough, and that’s what the problem was. Citing Ember:

Yet amid a national movement for racial justice that took hold after high-profile killings of black men and women, there is also an acknowledgment among some progressives that their discussion of racism, including from their standard-bearer, did not seem to meet or anticipate the forcefulness of these protests.

Kimberlé Crenshaw, the legal scholar who pioneered the concept of intersectionality to describe how various forms of discrimination can overlap, said that Mr. Sanders struggled with the reality that talking forcefully about racial injustice has traditionally alienated white voters — especially the working-class white voters he was aiming to win over. But that is where thinking of class as a “colorblind experience” limits white progressives. “Class cannot help you see the specific contours of race disparity,” she said.

Many other institutions, she noted, have now gone further faster than the party that is the political base of most African-American voters. “You basically have a moment where every corporation worth its salt is saying something about structural racism and anti-blackness, and that stuff is even outdistancing what candidates in the Democratic Party were actually saying,” she said.

Crenshaw’s point here is that the empty, utterly immaterial statements of support coming from multinational corporations are more substantial and important than policy proposals that would have actually addressed racial inequities. This is astounding. A full throated embrace of entropy as praxis. 

Crenshaw started out the primary as a Warren supporter but threw her endorsement to Bernie once the race had narrowed to two viable candidates. This fact is not mentioned, nor does Ember feel the need to touch upon any of Biden’s dozens of rhetorical missteps regarding race (you might remember that he kicked off his presidential run with a rambling story about the time he toughed it out with a black ne'er do well named Corn Pop, or his more recent assertion that if you don’t vote for him, “you ain’t black.”). The statement here--not the implication: the direct and undeniable statement--is that tone and posturing are more important than material proposals, and that concerns regarding tone and posturing should only be raised in order to delegitimize those who have dared to proffer proposals that might actually change things for the better. 

The ascendence of privilege theory marks the triumph of selective indignation, the ruling class and their media lackeys having been granted the power to dismiss any and all proposals for material change according to standards that are too nonsensical to be enforced in any fair or consistent manner. The concept has immense utility for those who wish to perpetuate the status quo. And that, more than anything, is why it’s gotten so successful so quickly. But still… why have people fallen for something so obviously craven and regressive? Why are so few decent people able to summon even the smallest critique against it? 

We can answer this by taking a clear look at what privilege actually entails. And this is where things get really, really grim:

What are the material effects of privilege, at least as they are imagined by those who believe the concept to be something that must be sussed out and eradicated? A privileged person gets to live their life with the expectation that they will face no undue hurdles to success and fulfillment because of their identity markers, that they will not be subject to constant surveillance and/or made to suffer grave consequences for minor or arbitrary offenses, and that police will not be able to murder them at will. The effects of “privilege” are what we might have once called “freedom” or “dignity.” Until very recently, progressives regarded these effects not as problematic, but as a humane baseline, a standard that all decent people should fight to provide to all of our fellow citizens. 

Here we find the utility in the use of the specific term “privilege.” Similar to how austerity-minded politicians refer to social security as an “entitlement,” conflating dignity and privilege gives it the sense of something undeserved and unearned--things that no one, let alone members of racially advantaged groups, could expect for themselves unless they were blinded by selfishness and coddled by an insufficiently cruel social structure. The problem isn’t therefore that humans are being selectively brutalized. Brutality is the baseline, the natural order, the unavoidable constant that has not been engineered into our society but simply is what society is and will always be. The problem, instead, is that some people are being exempted from some forms of brutalization. The problem is that pain does not stretch far enough.

We are a nation that worships cruelty and authority. All Americans, regardless of gender or race, are united in being litigious tattletales who take joy in hurting one another, who will never run out of ways to rationalize their own cruelty even as they decry the cruelty of others. We are taught from birth that human life has no value, that material success is morally self-validating, and that those who suffer deserve to suffer. This is our real cultural brokenness: a deep, foundational hatred of one another and of ourselves. It transcends all identity markers. It stains us all. And it’s why we’ve all run headlong into a regressive and idiotic understanding of race at a time when we desperately need to unite and help one another. 

[blkgirlsinthefuture]

Changing the Narrative

From the onset of the novel, Legendborn begins with both grief and trauma. Bree has lost her mother at a crucial part of her life, arguably when she needs her the most. Bree is about to enter college with all this grief, trauma, guilt, and anger and does not quite know how to deal with it. To worsen matters, Bree is about to attend a PWI… I’m sure most of us in this class can agree that this simple fact is the icing on the cake for all the s*it she’s going through. The two questions Deon raises that resonated with me the most are “Who gets to be legendary?”, and “What happens to Black women’s grief and trauma?”

Deonn did an impeccable job at worldbuilding a contemporary Black girl’s experience, especially at a southern PWI. I felt myself relating to multiple experiences Bree went through. There are so many parallels between Bree’s experiences at Carolina and my experiences here at William and Mary that I’m sure most people in this class have picked up on while reading. In fact, on pages 29-30 Bree’s encounter with the white officer felt like a déjà vu. The officer’s endless snooty remarks including calling Bree “girlfriend”, insisting she’s “need based”, and being in utter disbelief that a Black girl was admitted to Carolina based on merit while his white son got rejected, wreaks of the racism and misogyny I face in many white spaces. For example, when I announced that I was admitted to William and Mary with a scholarship covering my tuition many of the white students and adults at my high school were so shocked... as if I wasn’t in the top 3 of my graduating class… Furthermore, on page 75 Bree reflects on entering spaces she feels were not built for her. This feeling is also very familiar. Being surrounded by so many judging white faces and memorials dedicated to the very racist white people who fought for the continued enslavement of my ancestors takes a tremendous toll on my spirit. Aside from multicultural spaces on campus like the Center for Student Diversity, Africana House and other Black clubs on campus, there was never a sense of belonging at this institution.

In regard to Deonn’s questions about legacy, I found it interesting to see the extent to which it relates to what we are seeing on this campus with the re-naming, or lack thereof, of multiple academic buildings. This white institution is trying so desperately to uphold the “legacy” of these old white racist men while many Black and non-Black people of color are constantly fighting for the legacies of the enslaved to be heard, acknowledged and respected. History has shown countless times that individuals who are “allowed” to be legendary do not look like me. In reality, rich white men decide what it means to be legendary in addition to who gets to be legendary.

Finally, Deonn’s question of “What happens to Black women’s grief and trauma?” is one that must be addressed. Going back to my interpretation of Kindred and Black women’s trauma, both within the novel and in reality, I deduced that Black women inevitably face trauma in their lifetime. Deonn even expresses in the Dreaming in the Dark podcast that the Black mother passes many things to their daughters including love, protection, healing and trauma. She does not want to transmit the trauma to her daughter, but she knows the daughter will pick it up one way or another because she’s a Black woman. Black women are often burdened with carrying the trauma of their past and/or present. The ways in which we carry it differ. Certain spaces we enter make carrying this trauma that much harder because even when we try our hardest to just be, we have to deal with this intersectionality of multiple oppressions (racism and sexism). Deonn also stated that there are certain places where we don’t have carry trauma as much, using the Black hair salon as an example. I feel like Black women are superheroes in this way, and I love when we have one another’s backs while the world is against us.

[ramenheim]

Wild that you didn't even check your posts before answering this, but okay. My /tone/ is not going to get nicer, so you'll just have to address the /actual content/ of my writing while ignoring the /rudeness/.

In teal you waffle between acknowledging that specific trans communities both deserve and do not deserve to talk about how the misogyny+transphobia of other ppl Uniquely Intersect to affect themselves— an experience that depends on the incongruence between how their body was perceived at birth (xfm) & how society(+the law) at large perceives their gender *now* [the categories being (cis/passing)Man ; (cis/passing)Woman ; & ThingThatIsWrong (any number of derogatory terms)]. Since only perisex cishet men are meant to wield patriarchal privilege within the hegemonic definition of a Real Man— categorically all trans+intersex ppl are excluded whether we consider it 'fair' or not (or whether we 'pass as men' or not). So there is no reason transmisogyny would exist as the only possible intersecting expression of transphobia to be 'worthy' of being discussed with a name, since all trans genders & intersex variations explicitly transgress against their Assigned Patriarchal Hierarchy and are punished in-line with what it decides You Should Be.

In yellow you literally did the exact thing you're saying "you never said". Trans men would not BE trans if they were not also men— the transphobia directly at trans men SPECIFICALLY hinges on their sexual anatomy being 'inferior' in the eyes of patriarchy & unworthy of Maleness, and therefore are all female interlopers + 'corruptors of the male category' (while also being male interlopers + 'traitors to the female cause'). Transandrophobia*(virilmisia/etc.) is still the intersection of misogyny+transphobia bc the ACTUAL WORLD WE LIVE IN overwhelmingly does not see eg.)Pregnant Men as Real Men & having queer & trans-friendly spaces chomping at the bit to find ~Males~ they can abuse 'for not being women (enough)' has routinely hurt every single trans person who did not Pass as 'feminine enough to be trustworthy' regardless of their gender. It is radfem poison & this site is steeped in it.

In red you expose that, no, you have NOT been keeping up with discussions of antiblackness & intersectionality; bc the antiblack racism that Black men experience is in fact held to be **specifically because they are men who are Black** & their specific experiences with racism can not be disentangled from their gender. Misogynoir (& transmisogynoir) were coined BECAUSE discussions of antiblack racism treated cis Black men's experience as the default 'Just Racism' (whether Black women experienced it or not) and the antiblackness that targeted black women *specifically* was being dismissed as Divisive (which was the exact same thing they heard from white feminists whenever they brought up misogyny that was uniquely directed at them) and not worthy of name or discussion (by EITHER group they *allegedly* had to support them— see: transmisogynoir needing to be coined in direct response to transfeminists doing white feminism 2.0).

The rest of your post is not better thought out or particularly compassionate to trans ppl's actual lived experiences irl, frankly. Saying "idk the ~implied~ etymological vibes are bad [bc you erroneously think you can seperate out the andro from the trans; by fundementally misunderstanding what an Intersection is] and also anyways it shouldn't even need a word to gather under [thereby silencing trans masc community discussions & contributing both to furthering transmasc erasure AND reinforcing the anti-feminist bias of treating 'male experiences' as the neutral default & not its own thing] what is this, oppression olympics?? [dismissing+trivializing discussions as just 'Divisive ID Politics' that are already covered under Other Bigotries]" is significantly more insidious than you realize; and I'm not greeting that mentality with ~kind platitudes~.

------------

‐----------

TL;DR – ONLY PERISEX CISHET MEN ARE THE STRUCTURAL BENEFACTORS OF PATRIARCHY.

STOP PENALIZING TRANS PPL FOR THEIR ""PERCEIVED ADJACENCY TO MALENESS""/""PERCEIVED DISTANCE FROM FEMININITY""— NO ONE HERE BENEFITS FROM BEING TRANS ONCE IT'S KNOWN THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE.

* R E A D * BLACK GENDER THEORY *BEFORE* USING ITS TERMINOLOGY.

* THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT TRANSFEMINIST THEORY *

I'd like to remind you that "Man" should not be treated as the Default Human Identity— all men have an Intersectional identity inclusive of their gender; that they aren't women/etc. doesn't mean their gender doesn't factor into how oppression axes impact them.

You seem like you missed out on the Masculinities section of Intersectional Feminism— you should fix that before misinforming people on what intersectionality (as a tool for feminist analysis) is used for by claiming that Privileged Positions (white/cis/male/etc.) are somehow not their own "Intersectional Identities" bc they "aren't oppressed".

i very much don’t think that men are non-oppressed? i know that men are oppressed by the patriarchy, in ways that are subtle and often overlooked. men as a whole are oppressed on a societal scale, because the patriarchy oppresses all that are in it. men who are in some way marginalized— queer, non-white, neurodivergent, physically disabled, etc— will have to face this oppression in tandem with the other identity (or identities) for which they are marginalized. this is a fact, and not one i have ever tried to deny?

please don’t put words in my mouth like that. also, in the future, if you disagree with me on a subject, just say that and approach me in good faith. when you come into people’s inboxes with accusations like this (especially on anon), you’re just going to make them want to go on the defensive. i’m not one to get in online arguments, especially not over topics that i explicitly stated i dislike discussing, but being this aggressive with people isn’t going to get you far if you want them to actually hear what you have to say.

[queermediastudies]

Putting the “Camp” Back in “Conversion Camp”

How But I’m a Cheerleader (2000) Makes a Comedy Out Of Conversion Therapy (And Whether or Not it Should)

Jamie Babbit’s cult classic, But I’m a Cheerleader (2000) paints a satirical portrait of what most queer youth fear most, conversion therapy. The titular cheerleader, Megan (Natasha Lyonne) is your typical all-American good girl. She goes to church, she never drinks, and she is even dating the high school football star. She is the kind of daughter that white, middle-class Americans dream of having, with one glaring exception. Megan is a lesbian. With the help of the self proclaimed “ex-gay” counselor Mike (RuPaul), her family and friends stage an intervention before shoving her off to True Directions, a conversion camp run by Mary Brown (Cathy Moriarty). Once there, she realizes that she is in fact a lesbian, one who is in love with her fellow camper, Graham (Clea Duvall). 

The film is hilariously over the top, hence it’s description as a camp classic. Babbit uses exaggerated gender roles to illustrate the intersection between gender performativity and sexuality. Unfortunately this decision to poke fun at heteronormative stereotypes come at a cost. Even the gay characters are uncomfortable stereotypes, and the film ignores any questions of intersectionality. Moreover, Babbit does not always handle the horrors of conversion therapy with the kind of tact and grace such a subject demands. Essentially, while the film attempts to show the ridiculousness of gay conversion, its use of stereotypes and one-dimensional characters lashes back to harm the very people Babbit is speaking on behalf of. 

One of the most easily recognizable problems with But I’m a Cheerleader is its overwhelming whiteness. There are all of four characters of color, and only one of those characters is a woman. Jan (Katrina Philips), the one woman of color, is treated terribly in the film. She shows up with a unibrow, dark mustache, shaved head, and baggy clothes. When she introduces herself, she smiles and says, “I’m Jan, and I’m a softball player, and I’m a homosexual” (00:14:36). Essentially, Jan is a lot of outdated stereotypes about lesbians put into one character. The twist, though, is that Jan is actually straight.

This is a good example of how Babbit attempts to tell an important message, but she fails to see the harm she causes while doing it. Jan’s character is essentially Megan’s foil. She is everything a “dyke” is supposed to be, except that she is not attracted to girls. Megan, on the other hand is a lesbian that completely defies all of the stereotypes that Jan encompasses. Both women are meant to discourage our tendency to make assumptions based on appearance. While that is a wonderful message, the problem is that Jan is the only woman of color. There is a definite lack of positive representation for masculine women of color, so there is nothing inherently wrong with having a black, butch character. However, black women are often portrayed as more masculine than white women in both fiction and non-fiction. One need only look at the conversations the media has had about Serena Williams or the New Jersey Four to see how black women are ascribed a level of masculinity that white women are not. In the film, this is exacerbated by the consistent assertion that Jan is ugly, which is never challenged by any of the characters. The motive behind Jan’s character was excellent, but it is clear that the consequences were not thought out. Babbit could have avoided the problematic elements of her character by adding in more women of color, giving the masculine stereotypes to a white character, or by having a conversation about how her blackness and dark facial hair affected how she was treated. Instead, the meaning of Jan’s character is one-dimensional, and she comes off as the butt of the joke rather than the harbinger of an important message. 

Jan is not the only character wrought with gay stereotypes. Andre (Douglas Spain) is the most stereotypically gay man in the film. Whether by coincidence or not, he is also a person of color. Regardless, his character is so stereotypical it is almost offensive. The boys are taught to play football, chop wood, and fix cars in the hopes that heteronormative activities will straighten them out, so to speak. Andre fails miserably at all of these tasks, which, again, is fine in concept. What is offensive is the way he flails about and shrieks in a way that is so unnatural it plays out like a bigot’s idea of what a gay man is really like.

There are other issues of intersectionality and representation that are not quite so garishly offensive. For example, Joel (Joel Michaely) is Jewish, and very devoutly so considering he is never seen with his yarmulke. The True Directions programs, however, is very Christian-oriented. This tension between the two religions is never addressed, and that is truly a shame. Moreover, race is not mentioned once. As previously mentioned, there are horrendously few characters of color. Even worse, however, is the fact that not one of them has a storyline that acknowledges the difficulties of being a gay person of color. The film is a comedy, so no one should expect an especially fruitful in depth analysis, but there is not even one or two off handed jokes about it. The fact of the matter is that the characters of color are not fully realized people. They are surface level representations that rattle off jokes. It should be acknowledged that pretty much all of the characters have this shallow level of development (such is the price one pays when creating a satire that makes such liberal use of stereotypes), but that is no excuse for not acknowledging how race plays a factor in homophobia and gender norms. Much of the movie is centered around learning how to “act straight”, but performances of gender and sexuality shift when different identities come into play. Harris and Holman Jones explain how intersectional performances play into feeling like a minority, “In “feeling queer,” racialized subjects intersect with religious, gendered and sexualized minoritarian subjects to “do” minoritarianism differently” (Harris and Holman Jones, 2017, p.574). In a film that is all about acting out the roles society demands, ignoring how people of color are expected to perform their minoriatarianism does an injustice to the topic at hand.

There is also a good bit of homonormativity, a concept that describes the push for queer people to fulfill heteronormative roles even in gay relationships. The three same sex couples we see in the film follow the general idea that one person in the relationship should be more feminine and the other more masculine, though some couples embody this concept more than others. Dolph (Dante Basco) and Clayton (Kip Pardue) are the couple that fit this mold the least, but one there are remnants of it in their relationship. Dolph is on the varsity football team, and Clayton is generally more demure and submissive. Unlike Dolph and Clayton, Graham and Megan fulfill their homonormative roles with a good amount of clarity. Graham is by no means butch, but she is more masculine than she is feminine, at least by society’s standards. She has short hair, she never wears skirts, and she has a tendency toward profanity and vulgarity. Megan, on the other hand, is, well, a cheerleader. She only wears skirts, she wears her hair long, and she spends most of the moving gasping at any mention of sex. Finally, there is the old gay couple, Lloyd (Wesley Mann) and Larry (Richard Moll) who are “ex-ex-gays” as the film calls them. Once again we see the more feminine half of the couple, Lloyd, performing typically feminine activities like setting up dinner and getting in touch with his emotions. Larry, on the other hand, is a curt, large, bearded man who is quick to anger. The two could easily fit in to any heterosexual sitcom. 

While domesticity is the goal for many queer couples, the film ventures into what Duggan (2002) calls, “equality politics,” (p. 44). Essentially, it is the trap that members of the gay community where they ask the powers that be for marriage and military equality. After that, they feel that there is nothing left to do, so they promise to depoliticize gay culture. Duggan describes them best when she writes, “These organizations, activists, and writers, promote ‘color-blind’ anti-affirmative action racial politics, conservative-libertarian ‘equality feminism,’ and gay ‘normality,’” (Duggan, 2002, p. 44). In it’s failure to acknowledge race and the enforcement of heterosexual roles onto gay characters, the film certainly demonstrates these equality politics and a message in favor of homonormativity.

Perhaps the most difficult to address issue with the film is the premise itself. It begs the question: should conversion therapy be used for comedy? Moreover, questions of how to do that respectfully arise, and, frankly, there were several instances where Babbit failed to do so. Babbit’s own history is important in understanding why she created a comedy about conversion therapy. She herself is a lesbian, and her mother worked at New Directions, a rehabilitation center for teens and young adults. Obviously, the name of the conversion camp, true directions, is a play on New Directions, and Babbit further explains the connection between her mother's career and But I’m a Cheerleader in an interview with Wheeler Winston Dixon. “So I'd always wanted to do a comedy about growing up in rehab, and the absurdity of that atmosphere. But I didn't want to make fun of twelve-step programs for alcoholism and drugs, because they really help people, but when you turn it into Homosexuals Anonymous, then I felt that was a situation I could have fun with” (Dixon, 2015, p. 2). Babbit likely felt that conversion therapy would be a harmless target because making fun of the programs and their leaders is not damaging to anyone. However, as we have seen with Jan and Andre, the queer community was not spared from the ridicule. Moreover, while belittling the programs themselves, Babbit made light of some truly traumatizing experiences. For instance, the teens are given electric wands, which they must use to shock themselves when they have “unnatural” thoughts. Pain-based aversion therapy is a very real, traumatizing experience that too many people have had to face. But I’m a Cheerleader makes a mockery of it by using it for a number of sex jokes and showing that it does not hurt that bad. Graham playfully shocks Megan with it, eliciting a yelp, but not much else. Another girl in the program, Sinead (Katherine Towne), proclaims that she likes pain. She is then shown in multiple scenes using the electricity as a masturbatory tool. There may be arguments in favor of this detail, perhaps that Babbit was trying to show how pain can be reclaimed and used for pleasure, but I personally find it tasteless. It is especially questionable since Babbit herself has never gone through that trauma. When creating gallows humor, one must examine if they are on the gallows or a member of the crowd. A person on the gallows who laughs is using humor to cope. A person in the crowd who laughs at the man getting hanged is simply cruel. It seems that Babbit believes that she, having experienced lesbianism, has just as much of a right to stories of conversion therapy as someone who actually experienced it. She does not. This is not to say that the premise of this film is off limits. Babbit simply should have been more careful in how she portrayed the horrors of conversion therapy.

But I’m a Cheerleader has the difficult job of being a breakout text. Cavalcante explains that a breakout text accomplishes three things, “ Breakout texts also generate three definitive breaks: (a) a break into the cultural main-stream, (b) a break with historical representational paradigms, and (c) a breaking into the every day lives of the audiences they purport to represent,” (Cavalcante, 2017, p. 2). It may have not been hugely successful, but it was popular enough to make its way into straight communities. Moreover, it breaks plenty of ideas of historic representation. Finally, it made its way into gay communities, and it has continued to live comfortably within them. This is why we need to be so hard on the film. As with anything that may be the foundation for someone’s knowledge about a topic (i.e. homosexuality, conversion therapy, gender non conforming heterosexuals, etc.) there is a responsibility to provide quality representations. Babbit sometimes fails to do so, and if that those failures are not examined critically, then harmful information will be mindlessly spread around.

As a pansexual woman, I am always looking for content that portrays strong, sapphic characters. I am also always on the fence about using tragedies to create humor. I am stuck between knowing that some people use humor to cope with trauma and wondering if people should be laughing at atrocities. That is what drew me to But I’m a Cheerleader. I enjoyed the film, in spite of its flaws, but I do have to say I was a bit hurt and disappointed. I am Latinx, and I have been teased about my dark facial hair in the past. Hearing Jan get torn into for her unibrow and mustache while the pretty, white women around her did nothing was really upsetting. Moreover, as someone who is undecided about particularly dark humor, I really do feel that Babbit was tactless in her making of this film. Still, there were elements that I truly loved. As mentioned in the title and the introduction, this film is beautifully camp. The 1950′s aesthetic that the straight people emulate obscures the setting of the film, and the garish colors tell a story all on their own. The gay men are forced to wear bright blue, and the lesbians are forced to wear pink. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, outside of the program wears brown, obscuring their own identities and showing just how they all fit in together. The set design is also used in a really stunning way. Every once in a while something, typically something that represents sex or genitalia, is placed in the background to remind viewers that the sexuality of the participants will never be erased.

When it comes down to it, But I’m a Cheerleader has heart, and it has a great message. It is immensely funny, and the characters are shallow but lovable. The film’s best attribute is that it shows that anyone can be gay or straight, regardless of our assumptions based on how well they perform gender norms. The criticism shown above should not discourage anyone from watching the film. Rather, it should encourage people to watch it while being able to recognize and accept the ways in which it can be hurtful. It can have harmful stereotypes, unhelpful ideologies, and tactless jokes, but it also has love, bite, and an abundance of humor.

References:

Cavalcante, A. (2017). Breaking Into Transgender Life: Transgender Audiences' Experiences With “First of Its Kind” Visibility in Popular Media. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(3), 538-555. doi:10.1111/cccr.12165

Dixon, W. W. (2015). An Interview With Jamie Babbit. Post Script, 34(2).

Duggan, L. (2003). Equality, Inc. In The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberism, Cultural Politics and the Attack on Democracy (pp. 43-66). Boston: Beacon Press.

Harris, A., & Holman Jones, S. (2017). Feeling Fear, Feeling Queer: The Peril and Potential of Queer Terror. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(7), 561-568. doi:10.1177/1077800417718304

[gemsofthegalaxy]

One of the first things I did upon entering the Les Mis fandom was try to figure out how I would translate les amis/specifically Enjolras' political stances to modern day. Please keep in mind I haven’t actually read the book, I’ve watched a version of the musical and clips of the 2012 one. But it's clearly an important part of his character, like, on a foundational level. 

However, this isn’t the necessarily the easiest thing in the world because the book is (as far as i can tell) specific and very French, so if I’m trying to translate Enjolras’ politics my first inclination is to also put him in a specific place and time.  

So here are some general guidelines I have for writing Enjolras for myself, how I translate his politics the most directly, but first- I think it makes sense that, in whatever AU you are writing, you could assign any Cause and make that his Thing and have him be am activist of that Thing (for example, sometimes I like to make his ‘thing’ Sex Education and Feminism because those are things I like, although that’s not what his politics would directly translate to from 1800s France to Modern) 

Anyway, moving towards my “generic” Enjolras’ politics

Les Mis is French (obviously), therefore the politics of Les Mis are French. I am not French, so I have decided to make things easier on myself- in my modern aus, Enjolras is Canadian. I flip flop on whether he is anglophone or francophone, but because I am anglophone I tend to default to writing him that way

This is because there are big cultural differences between all of the provinces. Does it make more sense for Enj to be French Canadian? Yes, even if only because of his name, it does make more sense. However, I have only spent a total of 10 weeks in two francophone communities, therefore I cant speak to those cultural experiences, but I know they are different than anglophones. 

even if it's not mentioned explicitly, I write Enj as an anglophone Canadian simply because I am familiar with the politics of that community. This is also why I would not write him in the United States, because politics there are another beast.

With all that, if it is not a specific AU where I want him to have a specific cause, I tend to write Enjolras as focusing on anti-capitalism, building communities and grassroots organization, and doing his best to recognize intersectionality and acknowledge the place of race and gender in all social issues.

I also get the sense that, in the modern day and age, he would focus heavily on worker’s rights, housing, and basic income initiatives, again. Basically just trying to address income inequality. Basically, taxing and redistributing the wealth of the TOP earners in Canada (and huge companies) for the good of all the people. I acknowledge this might be projection, tbh, because I personally think income inequality is the root of all evil, lol, even if my personal activism has mostly been in the realm of feminism and LGBTQ rights. 

And again I do think he would identify as a feminist and talk about the patriarchy, race, sexuality, disability- I don’t think it’s possible for 1 person to fully champion all of these things, though, like on a physical “there is not enough time in the day” to do that

as I said at the very beginning, I haven’t actually read the book- but my interpretation of what his activism was like in the 1800s France, I think making income inequality his main Thing, would be the most logical follow through.  something that is underlying our whole society, something that literally makes us sick at a societal and personal level, and is of course further complicated by race and everything else, makes sense to me personally.

[evilelitest2]

So how do the rest of us get the dirtbag left to piss off?

You are speaking my language.  Its actually less hard than it should be, the dirtbag left isn’t that large it just seems larger because of how Twitter and Tumblr works.  The big thing we need to do get ride of those fuckers is to tap into their recruitment which means we need to very publicly talk about their issues.  THere are three main things we need to openly talk about, two of which are easy and one of which is...hard.  

1) Making it clear from the start that leftism and progressivism go hand in hand, that both of them come from the same place, the belief in human equality and justice.  

2) Make it clear that the so called “woke” values aren’t just good because they are morally good (though they are) but also because they are an objectively good idea and helps any real form of socialism.  Because again, treating gay people better isn’t just the right thing to do, it helps the nation.  Because having a large percentage of the population actually able to spend their time earning money, paying taxes, spending money and supporting social structures (to say nothing of their personal contributions to art/culture/science/entertainment ect) makes the society as a whole more healthy and productive.  Just to give a few examples

Keeping qualified women from working jobs that they can do better hurts everybody 

The sooner trans people can transition and get access to hormones and reach a state of emotional health the sooner they can actually live productive lives (constant misery does not make for a good citizen) 

The fact that about 40% of the US population is constantly denied access to good jobs, wages, education, opportunities, and cultural employment due to racism means that the nation isn’t benefiting from their possible contributions 

Making workplaces, even capitalist ones more gender neutral, racially/sexually diverse will produce better policies overall, because a lot of shitty elements of capitalism come from toxic masculinity, religious fundamentalisms  and white supremacy as much as it does from a pure profit motive

And even beyond those issues, no socialist policies are ever going to be enacted as long as otherwise marginalized people aren’t able to benefit from it  

Those are pretty easy arguments to make, we just need to make them loudly and do so even when the dirtbag left isn’t around.  Like we need to just openly state why intersectionality is a practical policy not just a moral one.  The last thing though...thats tricky because I think a lot of leftists don’t want to deal with it.  Which is

3) We need to do a better job of understanding conservatives

See we tend to understand Rightist as...failed leftists.  Like they just don’t know any better, if they weren’t so ignorant, they would accept our world view.  We just need to find a better way to explain equality to them and suddenly they would magically be on board.  And that ignores the biggest problem when you are dealing with a movement made up of bigots, fundamentalist's and conspiracy theorists, led by grifters and megalomaniacs...they like the policies that are enacted.  

The left has long believed that poor white men are voting against their own interest when they support bigoted policies that hurt them economically, but in many ways they are voting for their own interests if they view the world through a tribality “us vs. them” mindset...which they do.  ANd if they are a bunch of people who revel in the idea of hurting the weak and defining themselves as the sense of normal, and rejecting any notion of intellectualism.  I think Trump’s election really eye opening because every single evil, cruel, stupid, incompetent, and absurd policy was...openly cheered on by his cultists.  The notion that conservative voters are “misguided” or “misled” is hard to reconcile when you see how much they reveled in the images of immigrant children being taken away from their families, how much they delighted in Trump rejecting science and intellectualism, how they cheered him on every time he advocated torture, deportations, abuses', cruelty, and violating human rights, and finally how they were delighted when the police opened fire on unarmed protestors.  The Dirtbag’s left argument is that the average MAGA voter is a good old boy who is really just a good person who disagrees with you and wants to be able to swear, and that image is one that leftists created because white people don’t want to acknowledge that their family members would have been little Nazis if they had been around in 30s Germany.  And that is the big hurtle we have to address, that a about 60-74 million Americans are not just ok with but actively rooting for conspiracy theories, anti intellectualism, mass murder, torture, child abuse, dictatorship, racism, sexism, homophobia, and above all cruelty.  And that they will do so at the expense of their own self interest, these people are letting themselves die of Covid in order to support a man who will hurt the people they hate.  

And that is sort of the most difficult pill for the left to swallow, because the left still is in love with the Roussouian idea that most people are fundamentally good and its just systems that make them bad, and we don’t want to abandon that. And the dirtbag left takes advantage of that to provide a really comforting narrative to a lot of leftistst

“Oh Trump supporters aren’t really cruel selfish cultists who worship willing ignorance, they are just misunderstood, if we just use more slurs they will come around to our way of thinking”

The left really needs to understand that they really do believe what their actions indicate.  Its the same problem we had with post war Germany, the whole idea that “oh only the leadership were evil, most Germans didn’t know anything” when in reality most Germans (and really most Europeans) were complicit in antisemitism and dictatorship long before Hitler came to power.  The left never likes to believe the worse in people, the right is always too willing to do so.