#neurosex

[dhddmods]

Some new varsex terms!

(Please read and reblog our intersex guide, by the way! Its important to educate yourself and spread awareness!)

Neurosex

Neurosex: A term describing a varsex person whose neurodivergence is linked to their sex in some way. This could be an altersex person who feels as though their sex identity is directly correlated to neurodivergence, or an intersex person whose variation caused neurodivergence.

A few examples include the following:

-An intersex person with a chromosomal variation, and the chromosomes caused a developmental condition as well as their sex-traits.

-An intersex person with hypergonadism/hypogonadism or otherwise atypical-levels of hormones, who experiences a mood disorder or sexual disorder as a result.

-An altersex person who experiences sex-repulsion as a result of their neurodivergence, and identifies on the sexless spectrum because of that (such as desiring for their genitals or reproductive organs to be removed, so that sexual urges will dissipate.)

-An altersex person who feels as though they are xenosex due to one of their hyperfixations/special-interests, and desire to have sex traits relating to that interest.

-A system that is nonhuman-heavy, and desires for their shared body to be mythicsex as a result.

This term was requested by a user that wishes to remain anonymous.

The colors of the flag are taken from the neurodivergent flag. It takes the format of the varsex flag. The neurodivergent infinity symbol is also present.

___________

Invisiex, Invisigenital, Invisifluid, & Invisixenive

Invisiex: An altersex term, describing someone that desires one or more of their sex traits to be invisible, either solely to other people or to themself as well. When referring specifically to genitals, the term Invisigenital is used instead.

Invisifluid is used to describe someone that desires the ability to turn one or more of their sex traits invisible at will.

Invisixenive: An altersex term, describing someone that desires for their gonads or reproductive organs to be invisible, or to turn invisible at will. This generally refers to people with descended testes/ovotestes, however it could also apply to non-humans within systems, whose innerworld body is see-through in some way, or otherwise visible by outsiders, and they wish they could hide it.

Invisiex, invisifluid, and invisixenive is not the same as desiring retractable genitals, as the terms morphisex and morphixenive would be used instead.

The invisiex & invisigenital flag uses shades of bluish-grey to symbolize different levels of visibility.

The invisifluid flag follows a similar format to the invisiex flag, except bottom half of the flag inverts the top half, representing fluidity. There are also arrows within the altersex symbol to represent fluidity as well.

The invisixenive flag follows the theme of the other transreproductive flags.

___________

Objectex, Objenital, & Objectoxenive/Obxenive

Objectex: An altersex term, describing someone that desires one or more of their sex traits to be objects or object-like. For example, a person that desires a sex-toy in place of their genitals, or somebody that desires an inflatable chest. When referring specifically to genitals, the term Objenital is used instead. Cyberex and machinex might be considered subsets of this.

Objectoxenive: An altersex term, describing someone that desires for their gonads or reproductive organs to be objects or object-like. For example, a person that desires a toy uterus. Technoxenive might be considered a subset of this.

The objectex & objenital flag uses yellow to represent childhood-themed objects, brownish-yellow to represent adult-themed objects, dark green to represent objects formed through nature, brown is for culturally-themed objects, black is for non-tangible objects, and the white sparkle is for fictional objects.

The objectoxenive/obxenive flag follows the same theme as the other transreproductive flags. The teddybear represents childhood-themed objects/toys. The sparkler represents holiday-themed objects. The pot represents decorative objects. The couch represents furniture. The moon, star, sun, and planet represent space-themed objects. The buildings represent construction and location-based or cultural-based objects. The screw, nut, gear, telephone, and screen represent technology. The rocks and plant represents nature-based objects. The paper, paintbrush, and pencil represent art. The arrow represents weaponry. It also uses similar symbols to the luduace flag, to represent adult-themed objects.

___________

Xenochest: An altersex term, describing someone that desires a chest/breasts and/or nipples that are "unusual." (For example, desiring a chest made of clouds.)

The flag goes along with the xenophallus & xenoyoni flags and the xenoclitoris & xenovulva flags. A symbol meant to represent a chest is atop the altersex symbol.

[ryanyflags]

combo neurogender × neurosex by @dhddmods

neurogender neurosex pt: neurogender neurosex

Neruogender and neurosex combo flag :D

↓ References: ∞ alt neurogender flag (by kasatate1) ∞ neurosex coining and flag (by @dhddmods)

The neurogender and neurosex horizontal stripe colours are pretty similar, so I just combined their colours together. I added a horitonal white stripe in the center, to make it look more like the neurogender flag / visually set it apart from just looking like a edited neurosex flag.

For the symbol, I just used the same neurodivergent symbol that neurogender used (neurosex also uses a rainbow infinity symbol, but in a different design (different colours + shape), I only have a svg of the neurodivergent symbol I used, so i just defaulted to that).

[shrimpmandan]

genuinely people on this website need to realize “brain sex isn’t real!” is blatant TERF rhetoric and antithetical to actual decades of various neurological and psychological research pertaining to basic functioning, evolutionary biology, mental disorders, etc.

and no, some jackass thinking that it means male brains are “superior” or that the existence of neurosex somehow validates the existence of arbitrary stereotyping and gender roles doesn’t mean it doesn’t fucking exist!!! for the love of god!!!

[satyrradio]

idk if this is a hot take or whatever but the "brain sex" theory sounds so stupid

[probablyasocialecologist]

When it comes to gender theory, scientists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who were informed by eugenics “made strong statements about the social and political role of women, claiming all the while to speak for the scientific truth.” They typically referred to women’s reproductive capacity as a natural indication of their divinely ordained social role. Social, political, and religious ideologies informed the scientific beliefs of this time period, which is not dissimilar to the widely held beliefs of current gender/sex psychologists. It can be argued that the father of modern psychology himself, Sigmund Freud, in his quest to validate psychoanalysis as a legitimate science, reproduced the social opinions of his time in his psychological theories. His theories about femininity, in particular, have been criticized by feminist thinkers for the ways in which his frameworks position femininity as fundamentally incompatible with subjectivity, thus cementing women’s passivity and subordination as a psychological disposition that explains and justifies their social position under patriarchy. Although psychology has developed considerably since Freud, his work remains foundational to the field, and informs the ongoing structural violence of psychiatric pathologization experienced by marginalized subjects. Psychoanalytic concepts have become embedded in clinical, academic, institutional, and colloquial language, influencing the epistemologies of neurosexists and feminists alike. We continue to see bioessentialist reasoning about sexual difference employed in the name of feminism. Notably, bioessentialism informs contemporary discourse about trans rights. For example, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERF) refers to a radical ideology that equates womanhood with biological sex, and maintains a bioessentialist stance to discriminate and incite violence against trans women, and to exclude trans women from women’s spaces.  Proponents of trans exclusionary radical feminist ideology espouse the conviction that women are a group with a singular shared experience of womanhood based on the patriarchal violence experienced by people with vaginas. It arose out of the work of anti-porn feminist writing like that of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon in the 1970s, which centered the ways in which cisgender women’s bodies are uniquely subjected to sexualized violence. The objectification and sexualization of the cisgender female body was the main concern in this discourse, and as such, postmodern perspectives that disrupt bioessentialist ideas about gender and the body have been received as an existential threat to the objectives of this radical ideology. Third wave feminist discourse and theories, like intersectional feminist theory, have disputed the idea that bodily or physical similarities are experienced in the same ways socially and culturally (e.g., at intersections of race, class, ability, nation, gender identity, and sexuality). When it comes to trans discourse, it is important to recognize the ways in which non-normatively gendered bodies with any perceived association to femininity or womanhood are subjected to patriarchal and sexualized violence. Heteronormativity and rape culture affect more than just cisgender women. To weaponize a binary understanding of gender against women with diverse experiences of womanhood is to collude with the oppressive forces of the colonial, white supremacist hetero capitalist patriarchy.

[radfemfox5]

What do u think about the arguments of the brains on transgender people? I have seen that the standard response is "brain sex is not a thing". But I have seen that there is a great discussion between scientists about this and there are proofs that brains between men and women are different in some little ways. I also see this through autism lens, because I'm autistic and females are underdiagnosed and there is a discussion about it too: socialization or brain differences that make more easy the masking and faking neurotypical behaviour.

But of course, even if the brain argument is correct, I don't see how transition is the logical next step to take then. Like, is ur brain, u can take therapy and be gender nonconforming if that's the case anyway. Brain can be trained due to neuroplasticity and kids with gender dysphoria can be treated in a way to become more comfortable in their bodies.

Sorry for my poor english, I'm chilean.

Hi, thank you for your question. Don't worry, English isn't my first language either.

So, this is hard to answer. The short answer is that no, brain sex isn't real. If brain sex is not real, then trans-identified males cannot be born with a "female brain." I feel like this has been retired as an argument for transgenderism, as it's not only a nebulous concept but also goes against the concept that you can identify as anything you want (ie: no biological component to gender).

The long answer is that it's complicated. We don't know enough about the brain to fully understand which part does what, let alone what minute differences there may or may not be between the functioning of a male and a female brain. It's been proven that men and women use different parts of the brain to process the same information, so while there are no structural differences, there could be functional differences that we simply don't know about yet.

@woman-for-women has an excellent post about brain sex here (archive), and I'll use the sources she links as references for my next points. Go check out her posts, seriously, she's incredibly thorough and condenses difficult subjects into easy-to-digest infographics.

I'll first go over brain sex, why it's not real / not proven, and consequently why a male having a "female brain" is impossible. This turned out to be very long, so more under the cut.

In my opinion: the myth that males and females behave differently because of innate differences in brain structure comes from 2 things:

Logic / Common sense. If you present a man with a stressful situation, he will not react the same way a woman would. In our everyday lives, it's easy to assume that men and women are simply wired differently, since we have unique behaviours and thought patterns. Contrary to popular belief, most of this doesn't stem from innate biological differences, but rather from gendered socialization. It's hard for us to gauge what portion of our gendered differences is nature (innate) and which portion is nurture (socialization).

Anecdotal evidence and misconceptions about brain function. In the 18th century, it was discovered that a woman's brain weighs on average 5 oz lighter than a man's. This would lead the general public to assume that, since a woman's brain is smaller, this has an impact on her overall intelligence, which is not true.

Assumptions are often made in the general public and even in neuroscience when it comes to which part of the brain does what based on preexisting notions of what a man is and what a woman is. The study I just showed, for instance, was misconstrued in order to strengthen sex-based stereotypes.

What a surprise, my personal interpretation of my results just coincidentally happened to match gendered stereotypes that I was taught. How bizarre.

In all seriousness, this study and its methods have been ripped to shreds by people much smarter than I.

"As Gina Rippon, author of The Gendered Brain and outspoken critic of neurosexism shows, the hunt for proof of women’s inferiority has more recently elided into the hunt for proof of male–female ‘complementarity’. So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent than men, just ‘different’ in a way that happens to coincide with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles. Thus, women’s brains are said to be wired for empathy and intuition, whereas male brains are supposed to be optimized for reason and action."

In reality, according to more recent studies with bigger sample sizes, men and women don't have significant differences in brain structure to conclusively say that brains are sexually dimorphic.

If you're a more visual person, here are the graphs from the first study, showing overall brain matter volumes and volumes for specific brain structures. The second study's visualizations are less easy to understand, as they're brain scans and brain tissue images.

These graphs are called bell curves, and they're used to demonstrate a distribution. Basically, the peak of the "bell" shape means that this is the most common value for a certain demographic, while the extremities are outliers or rarer values.

As you can see, "considerable distributional overlap" means that these bell curves are nearly identical in most brain structures. However, white matter, grey matter and total brain volume are different in men and women, with women in this study typically having lower numbers. This doesn't affect overall intelligence, as we saw earlier, or affect the overall proportional volumes of different brain structures. This is just a result of women having smaller skulls on average.

So, if there is so much overlap between the sexes, then why can't a male have a female brain? The graphs do have overlapping sections, don't they?

The thing is, brain structure is nearly identical in both sexes. Therefore, there is no typically "female" or "male" brain, but rather "unique mosaics of features" which aren't uniquely male or female.

A good analogy that woman-for-women gives is this: if a man's height is closer to an average woman's height, does that mean this man is now a woman? No, he is a short male. Being in the overlap of this graph doesn't mean that you aren't a part of your own bell curve.

This is a complex topic that was very interesting to look into. If you have more questions about this, feel free to send another ask or look into the sources:

Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic (archive)

The human hippocampus is not sexually-dimorphic: Meta-analysis of structural MRI volumes (archive)

Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants (archive)

Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. (archive)

[mithliya]

my bad, i skipped most of this thread and simply read ur last response bc i didn't realise you wrote another reply before this one.

let me first address your comment on my education status: im mentioning my background because i would at least hope not to be talked down to on something ive been studying for years. i also think a lot of people on here frame themselves as neuroscience experts and seem to downplay the complexity of the human brain as they do so.

in terms of the first study you linked:

we found that brain features correctly predicted subjects’ sex about 69–77% of the time

this is actually not particulaly convincing. this means that much as 31% of the sample's sex could not be predicted from their brain. imagine if a study argued that we could not figure out human sex based on genitalia 31% of the time.. this would ultimately call to question the validity of human sexual dimorphism! but for some reason, this study is being used to argue that there are sexed brains despite their own numbers showing that there's a huge percentage of their sample whose sex could not be accurately determined

the paper then goes on to say

the multivariate overlap of female and male distributions based on the same variables was moderate (42% on average)

which again i find confusing as a counterargument bc "well actually 'male' and 'female' brains have 42% overlap" is actually pretty major. that alongside not being able to accurately predict sex in 30% of the sample is pretty significant and only goes back to support joel's paper's conclusions.

Under more realistic assumptions, the method of Joel et al. (1) virtually always returned the same pattern of results—a preponderance of “substantially variable” profiles, a minority of “intermediate profiles,” and a very small proportion (often close to zero) of “sex-typical” profiles

literally confirming joel et al's findings and saying that even with different assumptions in place, the vast majority of brains have a mixture of male-typical and female-typical traits rather than fitting neatly into male vs female brain.

there seems to be no degree of sexual dimorphism in realistic datasets that will yield results that falsify the hypotheses of Joel et al.

this is literally saying they are unable to falsify joel et al.'s findings.

in joel et al.'s response, this paper (& actually every paper you linked) is addressed

Del Giudice et al. (6) provide an elegant validation of our method of analysis, by demonstrating that internal consistency is higher than substantial variability when distinct populations (facial morphology of different primate species) are assessed. Thus, with a cutoff of 33%, internal consistency was found in 1.1–5.1% of profiles (depending on the pair of primates assessed) and substantial variability in 0% (6), compared with 0–8.2% internally consistent brains and 23–53% substantially variable brains [depending on the dataset (1)]. This comparison also reveals a degree of “mosaicism” in brains that is much higher than that found in primate species and provides further support to our conclusion that human brains do not belong to two distinct populations.

so to conclude, your first link does not in fact debunk the paper.

in your third study:

We wholly agree that a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist

this study also failed to correctly predict sex based on the brain in many cases. they had around 90-95% accuracy when size differences were not excluded (which is bizarre to me because its widely accepted that the largest sex difference when it comes to brains is size) but once excluding it, prediction accuracy dropped to as low as 65%. again this would mean that a huge portion of people's sex cannot be determined by their brain. this again, does not disprove joel et al's argument.

one of joel et al's primary arguments is that intersex conditions are extremely rare (the number used was 0.3%) whereas according to these studies, brains aren't clearly male or female in up to 35% of cases! meaning brains are "intersex" in a huge portion of the population.

rosenblatt's study also shows significant overlap between "male" & "female" brains but using multivariate methods, accuracy in predicting sex went up to 80%. but joel et al. found a very blatant problem with rosenblatt's technique:

using penalized logistic regression on cortical thickness and subcortical volume calculated using FreeSurfer (a technique that does not “correct” for differences in brain size)

if differences in brain size are not accounted for, then these prediction rates are not actually telling us much at all!

here's a quote from joel et al. which seem to have been misunderstood by you, seeing as you're actually arguing what that study is saying!

Clearly, sex affects the brain, as evidenced in differences between brains from females and brains from males in both macroscopic and microscopic features. However, the fact that sex affects the brain does not necessarily entail that there are two distinct types of brains, “male brains” and “female brains,” as there are two distinct types of genitalia ... As a result, brains are expected to be composed of both features more common in males compared with females and features more common in females compared with males, a situation that rarely occurs in genitalia. When it does occur, the genitalia are classified as “intersex” and not as “male” or “female” (5). Our analysis was designed to assess how common this “mixture” of features is in the human brain. We found that there are many more “substantially variable” brains, that is, brains with both features that are more common in males compared with females (“male-end” features) and features more common in females compared with males (“female-end” features), than “internally consistent” brains, that is, brains with only “male-end” or only “female-end” features. The finding that substantial variability is more prevalent than internal consistency was robust across different samples, age groups, type of magnetic resonance imaging, method of analysis, and the cutoff used to define the “male-end” and “female-end” zones (table S2 in ref. 1) and led to the conclusion that human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: “male brain”/“female brain”.

joel et al. ARE saying that brains are not strictly male or female, but rather fall within a spectrum with some sexed traits rather than brains themselves being sexed.

now back to your statements:

there are a typical "male" brain and a typical "female" brain, and it's obvious there would be, as sex hormones affect every parts of our bodies, including our brains.

joel et al. very clearly did not dispute the argument that hormones impact brain development. frankly i don't think that's even a topic of debate within neuroscience. you argue "there are a typical "male" brain and a typical "female" brain" but according to even the study you linked, this is only the case in VERY few people. the vast majority of people do not have a "typical "male" brain" or a "typical "female" brain... hence the argument that brains are not a sexually dimoprhic organ. the argument was never that there is NO ONE who falls into the extreme ends, the argument is that brains exist within more of a spectrum.

TERFs think that the influence of hormones stop above the neck, it's fucking stupid. Does that mean that all women like pink and all men like blue, no. And there is still a spectrum, it's not binary.

again, that is what joel et al's study is arguing. they are arguing the brain does not exist within a binary. the study is not arguing that hormones do not influence brain development whatsoever.

Finally, another argument that is given is often that "it's society doing that", but actually, we can see brain differences before birth.

your study on functional connectivity differences in fetal brain development is so far uncontested but has listed major limitations since its the first study of its kind. that said, when i was looking into explanations of such potential differences, researchers seem to believe this difference in fetal development exists to promote healthy sexual development and to regulate hormones. that said, this is still unclear and unknown and researchers can only theorise. the argument that this difference in connectivity somehow means brains are either male or female, or that behavioural differences are rooted in this, is misguided. no researcher has gone that far with these findings from what ive seen because these studies have major limitations and this difference is not yet understood.

 A significant body of literature has linked differences in these regions to sex hormones; however, the specific mechanism is not clear. 

It is not clear whether this difference is reflective of typical development or driven by preterm birth and its’ associated effects. Due to the paucity of research during this time period, knowledge about typical sexual differentiation of the connectome and when the observed childhood differences begin to arise remains poorly understood.

in contrast, other research found no sex differences in connectivity, this study focuses more on lateralisation:

we demonstrate that left- and right-lateralized networks are homogeneously stronger among a constellation of hubs in the left and right hemispheres, but that such connections do not result in a subject-specific global brain lateralization difference that favors one network over the other (i.e. left-brained or right-brained). Rather, lateralized brain networks appear to show local correlation across subjects with only weak changes from childhood into early adulthood and very small if any differences with gender.

anyways researchers have noted that research that claims that theres a difference between the brains of men & the brains of women is far more likely to be published than research that found no difference, a clear publication bias:

What it does mean is that brain are typically male or female, but it doesn't mean that behavioural sex differences are explained those differences in brains (aka, having a typical "female brain" doesn't mean you'll like pink and cooking, just like having a typical "male brain" doesn't mean you'll like blue and sport, that's not what's being argued there). However, what we call "gender identity" might, just like being gay is. Because parts of a brain can be typically male or typically female and functions of a brain can be typically male or typically female.

none of the research you've provided relates to this and, again, if the vast majority of people have "intersex" brains and barely any people have brains that are specifically "male" or "female", then using neurosex to argue about gender identity is, at least as of yet, not a strong argument.

also i have not found any study positing that sexual preferences and self-perception and mental illness are related to whether you have a "male brain" or a "female brain". lesbians for example do not have a "male brain", but we do have some similarities to straight men... which makes sense considering we are both attracted to women and attraction impacts the brain.

Which completely obliterates the argument of TERFs, but you are ignorant of it, and it kinda pisses me off tbh, because then you spread the same bullshit as they do and you agree to their stupid points without looking into their ideas. Civil debates with TERF requires a debate, not you to agree with them on their points.

an argument can only be obliterated if it has scientific basis. misrepresenting research and overestimating what the findings show and then generalising that to reinforce neurosexism and the idea that there are two distinct binary brain categories does not obliterate anything.

your study focuses on the debate of whether brain differences causes behavioural differences in humans. It ITSELF says that there is actually 1% that is accounting for sex.

1% of behavioural differences being accounted for by sex is actually really bad and weak btw. its not supporting your argument to point this out.

There is a lot of red flag, it implies that it would mean autism and other forms of very well known conditions that are very clearly correlated on sexual characteristics and affecting the brain, are somehow not dependant from sex.

i guess you're referring to extreme male brain theory of autism which, btw, is very outdated, sexist, and debated. if you're referring to sex differences in receiving an autism diagnosis, then you should perhaps look into the fact that girls with autism are often misdiagnosed and diagnosed later, not bc autism is a "male disease" but because of biases in diagnosing in general. otherwise, i have no idea what ur referring to but no it does not raise any red flags nor is autism "very clearly correlated on sexual characteristics"

but I also think society cannot explain it all and actually explain very little it and of itself (it's, to me, a call of ignorance, the same way you'd use god to explain natural elements).

it would be ignorant to argue society influences 100% of it but to argue that it "explains very little" is also downplaying it. socialisation does play a major role in brain development.

It's a meta-synthesis, aka they looked at 30 years of brain studies, chose the one that they liked, and made a review of it.

that is not what a meta-synthesis is. what you're describing is a questionable research practice, not meta-synthesis.

it is very clear you have a vested interest in defending the idea of brains being sexed because you view your identity as reliant on brain sex being true. consider the fact that having sex dysphoria as a female does not mean that your brain is somehow "more male" or "male typical" and that there probably is neuroimaging evidence of brain differences in individuals with sex dysphoria and these differences do not need to rely on rigid and outdated conceptions of human brains rooted in sexism. there are numerous possible explanations for gender dysphoria that do not require the confirmation of sexed brains to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I created this blog for one purpose - civil arguments against radfems and/or TERFs (I've seen some people belonging to those groups use one, some use the other, and some use both).

It is my strongly-held belief that the mainstream trans movement fails at discourse in several ways, most notably telling radfems/TERFs to kill themselves wherever they pop up. (Technically speaking, Tumblr users do this with everyone they deem problematic, but that certainly doesn't make it acceptable.) This helps no one, and fosters animosity everywhere, as well as normalizing this sort of extremely bad behavior.

I have a few other problems with the mainstream trans movement. If you've read this far, I hope it's clear that I am not a TERF/radfem, but seek to argue with them civilly instead of by saying "kys terf (look how strong my argument is 😎)"

I will try my best to be as civil as possible on this blog. However, I am a human being, prone to irrationality and bad behavior just like everyone else. If I fuck up and say something unacceptable, please do tell me.

That said, you will never see death/rape/anything-of-that-sort threats coming from me. Fun fact: it is staggeringly easy to not wish for people's deaths on the internet!* Just remember that's a person you're talking to and ask yourself "Do I really want to be this hateful and rude because someone said something I don't like?"

As of this post being written, I don't block people. I can't see this policy changing unless someone committed some extremely egregious offense** against me that merited it.

There are no DNIs on this blog and you'll probably never find any. That said, if you bring racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny***, homophobia****, or similar sentiment onto this blog, I will tell you to fuck off because that is very much not welcome here.

Lastly, I am trans. (I will probably never state more about myself than that.) I will acknowledge this. This means that, yes, I may find myself biased in some respects, and I will try to keep that in mind.

*Oh yeah, I will sometimes probably be sarcastic, mildly angry, etc. on this blog. As stated, I am a human being, so please tell me if I say something fucked up. However, apart from that, this is a blog that is civil, but certainly not one where I will never use humor, anger, memes, or normal internet user stuff. I have emotions.

**No, that is not equivalent to "someone said something I don't like". To me, "egregious offense" means "you put racist comments on all my posts" or "you sent death threats in my inbox" or similar.

***I mean actual misogyny. I most certainly don't deny that trans women face misogyny in unique ways, but there is nuance here and I am not about to go around claiming that any criticism of mainstream trans movements is misogyny. "Trans women are disgusting and should be killed" is (trans)misogyny, just like "women are disgusting and should be killed" is misogyny. "A lot of online trans spaces seem to be encouraging bad behavior" is not.

****Same with homophobia. "Gay people should go to hell" is homophobia. "Online queer culture sometimes promotes entitlement and here's why I think that" is not.

[amfetuum9mobile3]

yeah definitely not going 2 sleep soon

[dykeulous]

by the way, even though i am not fond of the doomerism and the blackpillers in this community, and my activism is more tied to dismantling neurosexism, biological essentialism, misogynistic spirituality and the like; i believe women should still have a space to vent their anger and even wrath. i believe women should be allowed to be nihilistic, angry, sad, mad, furious, wrathful– i believe women should be allowed to feel all the negative emotions in the world without risking being labeled hysterical and irrational. it’s easy to ramble on tumblr dot com about how useless & damaging pessimism and nihilism are– but how else are women supposed to feel when our society actively prays on our dismay and oppression. let women feel. let women speak. let women shout. let women destroy. let women cry. let women break. let women ruin. let women exist as human beings with the capacity to feel every single emotion on the broadest of spectrums.

stop holding every individual woman at the highest standards possible while letting men scot free. women are human. and as radfems, we should acknowledge this the most. as radfems, we should acknowledge that we also have internalized misogyny to battle and strangle. we have to work on unlearning that shit. we have to work on recognizing our own selves, and our sisters, as imperfect human beings. being angry at the state of the international woman proletariat is good. anger can be revolutionary. negative emotions can produce positive outcomes. and even if they don’t– it’s okay. you do not have a moral failing for having emotions. it’s okay.

[shrimpmandan]

Hi! I had a question -

You said in one post that you were interested in neurology, so I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind clarifying what this review is trying to say. I think you need an account to see it, but maybe you have one? If you don’t, I apologize. I also wasn’t able to read it, just the abstract, but I was able to read the conclusion.

I think it’s trying to say that there isn’t a single determined cause of being transgender, but I’ve also seen numerous people, including science educators, discuss how neurology plays a role in trans identity. Or maybe the review is not saying that neurology isn’t playing a role, just that trans identity is more complicated? I dunno, it’s confusing me - that’s why I wanted to ask. Of course, if you don’t want to answer, you don’t have to, but I was just curious. Thank you!

My first thought was to pop it into Sci-Hub but that just draws a blank page for me, unfortunately. Same with 12ft ladder.

You basically got the whole idea though, yeah. We don't know what exactly causes being transgender (there's a multitude of theories out there and honestly, any one of them or even multiple of them could be true-- the one I personally believe the most is hormonal imbalance in the womb), but you ARE correct that neurology plays a role (or at least evidences the existence of the gender incongruence), though the topic of if neurosex is even A Thing has been a contentious one for a long, long, LONG time.

If anyone has a way of access the link, do lemme know! Links to other sources about trans stuff would also be appreciated bc I'm honestly too lazy to grab shit rn

[rollerska8er]

I genuinely have no idea how you read Cordelia Fine and came to the conclusion that being transgender is a "chosen identity" but, okay.

I do wish "uwu I'm a radfem but I'm not a yucky TERF, I just use the exact same patronising rhetoric about trans people as TERFs" accounts on here would cut the shit.

you think being trans is a pitiable and abominable condition which prolongs the existence of misogyny, and while you may not have the outward contempt for trans people that J. K. Rowling has, you still, ultimately, wish trans people didn't exist.

do i believe trans identity is "innate"? no, because gender is not innate. but the conclusion you seem to have arrived at, based on Fine's work, is that how trans people feel about their gender is the product of a conscious choice, like picking a hairstyle. in fact, and Fine's work quite literally supports this, it is likely to be the result of a confluence of social, biological and cultural factors, which emerges in early childhood.

this hews extremely close to the "oh, the poor delusional flowers, if only they knew the Truth that Sex is Real" shit i see TERFs peddling all the time, only with the added insult that you're claiming to be pro-trans.

this is paternalistic, mealy-mouthed crap which claims to be on the side of trans people but quite simply treats them like they don't know themselves.

gender isn't real and sex, at least in the sense of a rigidly defined binary, isn't real.

either you are on the side of bodily autonomy, or you are a fascist. no exceptions.

Have you ever heard that claim that transgender people have brains of their chosen gender? Or the claim that men and women have completely different, dimorphic brains? Well, neither of those statements are true! Here's the explanation as to how neurosexism and bad science have hijacked our understanding of brains & sex/gender.

No information in these infographics mean you can't respect transgender individuals' chosen identities. It just means that "brain sex" is a neurosexist myth and neuroscience studies are insuffiecient to defend transgender identities as innate.

Feel free to repost these images or repeat the information next time you see someone claim that science has proved that brain sex is real or neuroscience explains why transgender people are the gender they say they are. Also, these take me a long time to make so a reblog is always appreciated :)

[edonee]

Having a conversation with trans-identified women gives me the same feeling as talking to a brick wall. They all go the same, so I'll just summarize a discussion I've had on here a while ago.

Socks (they/he/xe): "Oh, I identify as non-binary because I never associated with femininity, and I never felt attached to womanhood" (i.e. she doesn't like to conform to gender roles)

me: "You know womanhood isn't a feeling, right? Nobody, including myself, feels like a woman."

Socks (they/he/xe): "If you say that you should probably question your gender identity. You are probably trans. Gender is a feeling. You should read this (outdated) study about how trans people's brains are actually the opposite sex!"

me: "That's neurosexism. Also, it has been debunked. Don't you have any other arguments?"

Socks (they/he/xe): "Kill yourself TERF!!! You're probably just a trans man in denial!! Stop being transphobic!!"

[diddyrivera]

additional resources to marxist feminism:

living a feminist life by sara ahmed

the rise and decline of patriarchal systems by nancy folbre

this bridge called my back: writings by radical women of color by cherrie moraga and gloria anzaldua

delusions of gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference by cordelia fine

close to home: a materialist analysis to women's oppression by christine delphy

(pdf) the feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism

(medium) on women as a class: materialist feminism and mass struggle by aly e

(sagejournals) capital and class: the unhappy moments of marxism and feminism: towards a more progressive union

(substack) the marxfem pulpit by abigail von maure (earth2abbs on tiktok)

if anything else related to marxist feminism, just let me know :)

additional resources to eco feminism:

gossips, gorgons, and crones: the fates of the earth by jane caputi

parable of the sower by octavia e butler

neither man nor beast: feminism and the defense of animals by carol j. adams

bitch: on the female of species by lucy cooke

fresh banana leaves: healing indigenous landscapes through indigenous science by jessica hernandez

the intersectional environmentalist by leah thomas

right here, right now by natalie isaacs

feminism or death by francoise d'ealibonne

violent inheritance: sexuality, land, and energy in making the north american west by e cram

animal crisis: a new critical theory by alice grary

unsettling: surviving extinction together by elizabeth weinberg

land of women by maria sanchez

sexus animalis: there is nothing unnatural in nature by emmanuelle pouydebat

windswept: walking the paths of trailblazing women by annabel abbs

andrea smith - rape of the land

andy smith - ecofeminism through an anticolonial framework

carolyn marchant - nature as female

charlene spretnak - critical and constructive contributions of ecofeminism

heather eaton - ecological feminist theology

heather Eaton - The Edge of the Seat

janet abromovitz - biodiversity and gender Issues

joni Seager - creating a culture of destruction

karen warren - ecofeminism

karen warren - taking empirical data seriously

karen warren - the power and promise of ecological feminism

l. gruen - dismantling oppression

martha e. gimenez - does ecology need marx?

n. sturgeon - the nature of race

petra kelly - women and power

quinby - ecofeminism and the politics of resistance

rosemary radford ruether - ecofeminism: symbolic and social connections

sherry ortner - is female to male as nature is to culture?

sturgeon - the nature of race

val plumwood - feminism and ecofeminism

winona laduke - a society based on conquest cannot be sustained

if anyone has any other recommendations related to eco feminism, plz let me know :)

additional resources related to trans feminism:

the empire strikes back: a posttransexual manifesto by sandy stone

(chicago journals) trapped in the wrong theory: rethinking trans oppression and resistance by talia mae bettcher

(philpapers.org) trans women and the meaning of woman by talia mae bettcher

the transgender studies reader by susan stryker and stephen whittle

if anyone has other recommendations related to trans feminism, plz let me know :)

additional resources related to anarcha feminism:

the anarchist turn by jacob blumenfeld

we will not cancel us and other dreams of transformative justice by adrienne maree brown

burn it down: feminist manifestos for the revolution by breanne fahs

reinventing anarchy, again by howard ehrlich

anarcho-blackness by marquis bey

a little philosophical lexicon of anarchism from proudhon to deleuze by daniel colson and jesse cohn

joyful militancy by nick montgomery and carla bergman

wayward lives, beautiful experiments by saidiya v. hartman

we won't be here tomorrow and other stories by margaret killjoy

writing revolution by christopher j. castaneda

paradoxes of utopia by juan suriano

twelve fingers by jo soares

for a just and better world by sonia hernandez

if anyone has other recommendations related to anarcha feminism, plz let me know :)

[burningtheroots]

Women — people of the female sex class — are victims of the most heinous individual and collective crimes on earth. And it‘s been going on like this for thousands of years.

This includes:

female genital mutilation, girls and women of all ages can become victims, and it‘s even performed on baby girls

female infanticide; people abandon and murder female babies because of their sex

forced pregnancy and abortion, even worse in the combination with rape/incest; having a child by choice is self-sacrifice but by force it‘s literal torture, what it does to the body and psyche goes beyond the imaginable for the average person

generally the entire role of reproduction and the world‘s unwillingness to accommodate to women‘s unique contributions; motherhood penalty

child marriage, followed by marital rape and forced pregnancy/childbirth

menstruation taboos and period huts

suttee (femicide in Hindu communities)

honour killings

legal and social disadvantages and oppressions have been installed on the basis of our female bodies

the vast amount of medical (and general) research is centered around the male body — in fact, the whole world is built around the male body

health care for the female body and especially reproductive system is neglected massively; women suffering from female-specific conditions aren‘t taken seriously or there aren’t enough resources to help them

pain and other symptoms specifically affecting the female body are dismissed and/or normalized

high rates of femicide (sex-based crimes, male on female)

rates of women trafficked in prostitution and exploitated for their female bodies (prostitution, pornography etc.)

over-sexualization of the female body; the ideal of "small, thin, fragile" is forced upon us

rape culture and the flawed justice system which treats women like predators for speaking up

denied education and neurosexism

normalization of misogynistic slurs, caricatures and misogyny itself (it‘s treated like a secondary problem whenever oppressive systems are discussed and even defended under the prospect of "choice", which is heavily influenced by the very patriarchy that wants to silence us into obedience)

women during and especially after wars are raped and used as incubators to create new people who can later be used and abused (or use and abuse others)

rape is one of the most prevalent and strategically practiced war crimes through history and mostly aimed at the women ("marking territory by violating/claiming someone‘s property" is their motto)

The list could go on and on and on. Sex-based violence and oppression is REAL. And everything attributed to the female sex (gender roles) only serves to ensure that women remain at the bottom of the hierarchy. Wake up!

[self-loving-vampire]

Maybe I'm misreading but I feel kind of weird about the "forcemasc exists, here are examples from conversion therapy!" thing because as a transmasc it's like, okay, are you also going to acknowledge that forcefem can be part of conversion therapy, or...? Like your tags about "isn't foremasc what they do to GNC AMABs generally?" Are completely correct, but I feel like I would get destroyed for saying the same thing about forcefem. If we can acknowledge that forcefem has a whole culture around it with an origin that isn't conversion therapy surely we can see that forcemasc is similar?

Yeah I think I reblogged a post about that a couple of weeks ago that mentioned it in the context of like, being forced to dress up for family photos and the like. I don't think that's actually controversial to say that's a thing that people are forced to go through as well?

I'm pretty sure that was a common feminist talking point when I was growing up, even. It made conservatives really mad when anyone at all did not conform to the norms of their gender assigned at birth, even if they were completely cis.

This is evident enough from looking at christian parenting guides. For example, in "Bringing up Girls" known christofascist and child-beating apologist James Dobson comes out explicitly in favor of gender essentialism and argues (with use of some old-timey neurosexism) that not raising children in accordance to this view is doomed and harmful, and that deviations from it are aberrant and artificial. "Proper" boys like guns and violence and "proper" girls like flowers and babies.

And as a result, he concludes that there is a moral imperative to raise everyone AFAB to be feminine "ladies" (who are also sexually "pure", of course) and to counter any assertiveness they might have picked up from the fallen and overly feminist modern world.

Unsurprisingly, conservatives want people to conform to what was assigned at birth, regardless of what the assignment was and deviation gets punished.

We all know about transphobia, for instance, but even among cis people, those who deviate to their role experience more bullying, abuse, and sexual violence. Sex pests may also preferentially target women who violate gender norms.

(As an aside, this is why the argument that it is "femininity" itself and not GNC behavior that gets punished makes me feel like I'm losing my mind. Ditto for arguments that "pickmes" and "tomboys" are somehow privileged misogynists.)

[duckprintspress]

National Non-Fiction Day: 31 Titles to Get Your Queer Learn On!

In the past year, we’ve posted a lot about our favorite queer fiction titles. We wanted to take Non-Fiction day to talk about the non-fiction titles that have impacted us! Whether self-help, memoirs, psychology, history, sociology, or a different non-fiction genre, these are books that have helped us learn, helped us teach, helped us improve, helped us see and be seen, and helped us be more informed. So join us as we introduce our thirty-one recommendations for National Non-Fiction Day!

Fine: A Comic About Gender by Rhea Ewing

Gender Born, Gender Made: Raising Healthy Gender-Nonconforming Children by Diane Ehrensaft

Dear Senthuran: A Black Spirit Memoir by Akwaeke Emezi

Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel

Ace: What Asexuality Reveals about Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex by Angela Chen

Here For It: Or, How to Save Your Soul in America by R. Eric Thomas

Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke

Bitch: On the Female of the Species by Lucy Cooke

Unmasking Autism: Discovering the New Faces of Neurodiversity by Devon Price

My Lesbian Experience with Loneliness by Nagata Kabi

transister: Raising Twins in a Gender-Bending World by Kate Brookes

!Hola Papi!: How to Come Out in a Walmart Parking Lot and Other Life Lessons by John Paul Brammer

Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century by Graham Robb

London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885 – 1914 by Matt Cook

Queering Your Craft: Witchcraft from the Margins by Cassandra Snow

Female Husbands: A Trans History by Jen Manion

The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities by Janet W. W. Hardy and Dossie Easton

The New Queer Conscience by Adam Eli

Before We Were Trans: A New History of Gender by Kit Heyam

Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society by Cordelia Fine

Peculiar Places: A Queer Crip History of White Rural Nonconformity by Ryan Lee Cartwright

Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine

Queer Budapest, 1873 – 1961 by Anita Kurimay

LGBTQ-Inclusive Hospice and Palliative Care by Kimberly D. Acquaviva

Queering Colonial Natal: Indigeneity and the Violence of Belonging in Southern Africa by T. J. Tallie

Handbook of LGBT Elders: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Principles, Practices, and Policies edited by Debra A. Harley and Pamela B. Teaster

LGBT Transnational Identity and the Media by Christopher Pullen

Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations by Serena Nanda

LGBTQ Cultures: What Healthcare Professionals Need to Know about Sexual and Gender Diversity by M. J. Eliason and P. L. Chinn

The Terrible We: Thinking with Trans Maladjustment by Cameron Awkward-Rich

Trans Bodies, Trans Selves: A Resource for the Transgender Community edited by Laura Erickson-Schroth

You can view this list as a shelf on Goodreads!

It can be so difficult to find good non-fiction resources on queer topics. Which titles to DO you recommend?