#obviously this is rooted in transphobia but i am not in fact a trans woman

[iphigeniastrangeworth]

me: yeah i have a vagina and uterus and all but my testosterone levels are naturally pretty high-

jk rowling, already loading a shotgun: some crimes can never be forgiven, son of man

[armillary-spheres-lover]

Hey

Idk if you ever got the answer to your thing. But I’m a person who is queer but regularly uses the term lesbian to make things simpler. I can tell you why I hate the phrase monosexual- it feels transphobic to me- I am not attracted to men at all, but I am attracted to women, non-binary folks, gender queer folks, and agender folks. If I was with a partner and they transitioned to be a man I would still love them. That wouldn’t change. Sexuality is fluid and calling someone monosexual seems to erase that and really put people in boxes. Everyone has exceptions. And as someone who has identified as bisexual and pansexual in the past and find those not to suit me and fit right (especially since I am not sexually/romantically attracted to people physically/based on appearances- it’s more about personality and what I could do with a person)

I don’t mean this in an antagonistic way, I really hope it doesn’t come off that way(I’m bad expressing myself sorry).

(I’m sorry, I know you’re not trying to be rude. My answer, however, will sound rude and upset because you touched upon some stuff that needs a lot of unpacking to me lmao. Just know this anger is not necessarily directed at you but at biphobia in general.)

Why do bisexual people may need to use the term monosexual?

A. It is descriptive

I see what you mean but as you said you're queer and lesbian is a term to make things simpler, right?

So I wouldnt call you monosexual because you’re clearly not attracted to only one gender (but if you want to who I am to stop you?). Monosexual is someone who is almost exclusively dating/is attracted to people of one gender. There are plenty trans people that are straight or gay that would NOT date a partner if they realized they were a different gender. For real: kat blaque made a video (here it is if youre interested) on youtube about this - she’s trans and she wants to date men and wouldnt feel comfortable on continuing dating if a partner of hers realized they were actually a trans woman all along. She wants to date guys not girls and that's FINE it just means A. She actually recognizes the girl gender, obviously B. She's straight af and that's wonderful! It’s not a box if that’s how her experience is and she likes it that way!

Also how is being monosexual transphobic? Cant a girl just like guys exclusively (both cis and trans) or like girls exclusively (both cis and trans)? It's not even enbyphobic since you dont need to be attracted to a person to support their rights. (Gay men arent attracted to women but can be 100% feminists.) Being open to fuck somebody is not the same as supporting their rights: fetishization is a thing. Again, I refer to the video Kat Blaque made.

Sexuality IS fluid but to some people (like me and you) it is more than others. Some people don’t feel comfortable dating people that dont fall into the gender theyre usually attracted to and thats 100% okay.

B. It helps in talking about biphobia and panphobia in society

Biphobia and panphobia are for the large part based on the assumption that you cant be attracted to more than one gender (not even non-binary and so on) and that if you do you're weird/disgusting/mentally ill/a sexual predator. I can tell you 100% that's the narrative both straight and gay people can and may perpetuate since I struggle w this kind of shit every single time Im attracted to someone no matter their gender (YES, EVEN IF THEY'RE A GUY, BECAUSE THE OTHER DAY I WAS ATTRACTED TO A GIRL AND NOW I FEEL LIKE A FUCKING ANIMAL THAT CANT CONTROL ITSELF, even though it makes NO sense because if it was two girls or two boys the actual number of people my hormones activated to wouldnt change, but it would make my experience not subjected to biphobia!). I’m not saying gay people are the same as straight people. But I do feel alienated BOTH from heteronormative society AND from (subtly biphobic) gay spaces because of my bisexuality. I costantly feel like I’m outside both of those worlds and you know how humans are: I just need a term to encompass it all easily, to say “I don’t identify with any of this” (which is both straight and strictly gay spaces: ie, monosexual). To me is literally the same as saying non-bisexual/non-pansexual.

I dont mean to say lesbians or gays have it easier or are just like straight people. But we do have different experiences and I need terms to express that. It honestly doesnt matter to me if you identify as lesbian or queer (though I think you’re implying you’re more queer than anything). But I do need a term to talk about how society at large treats sexuality; ie, as a monosexual thing. Another concept that’s been thrown around is bi erasure. A strictly monosexual society is bound to view a girl dating a girl (or girl presenting) as if theyre both LESBIANS and erase a queer person the moment they’re in a m/f relationship, because people cant COMPUTE that it may not be the case and that the girl dating a cis straight dude isnt betraying her queerness.To think so is basic biphobia.

In some ways, I think it’s the same as when transgender people started using the term cisgender - which is applicable to both straight people and queer/gay people. They simply needed a term which meant “not-trans” as they were saying “I dont identify with this” (ie the cisgender experience). Does it imply that cisgender people, no matter if queer, have something in common? Yeah, yeah it does. Does it imply that queer people are just the same as straight people, or face no oppression? Of course not. Seeing people being offended upon being called monosexual feels like people being offended upon being called cis to me.

Also, saying that the terms bisexual people use are transphobic is almost implying that bisexuality is inherently transphobic? Or reeks to me of that kind of rhetoric. I use the terms I need to use, just like any other marginilized group does, and nobody outside of that group has any right of denying me that. It’s like I’m trying to create a safe space for myself and people like me and yall come around to judge us YET AGAIN. And I'm just tired of hearing this bullshit. I could accept this kind of criticism only if it came from a trans person themselves, I guess? But it’s not usually trans people who accuse us of being transphobic, in fact, many trans people identify as bisexual and use bisexual terminology lmfao.

“Hearts not parts” rhetoric

Finally, about personality being superior to physical appearance. That's amazing but I do want to note that, not you necessarily, but many people who are into the “hearts not parts” rhetoric are, how can I say this. Slut-shaming people? I’m not sure if you are doing this but I feel it needs to be said just to be sure. A lesbian trans woman can be just attracted to a girl for her physical appearance and just want to fuck her - and THAT'S OKAY. That's fine. I am a sexually attracted to people and that doesnt mean I have to form a deep bond first. Sex positivity is about accepting that people can feel like this and not shame them for this. "Hearts not parts” rhetoric has in the past infantilized, sanitized or outright shamed other queer experiences. It's fine if you feel that way but dont start acting like you're morally superior because of that. That's catholicism with extra steps. My bisexuality its not the symptom of some predatory and animalistic thing that should be purified into something more palatable and less sexual. That’s the same thing they used to say about gay people and now gay (biphobic) people are using this against us. That’s also the kind of thing trans women (especially if they’re sapphic) constantly hear every fucking day. Queer people have a good part of their discrimination rooted in the shaming of purely sexual desires. Forcing ourselves to be more palatable and less sexual is just respectability politics. I’m tired of it. (This is obviously different from being on the asexual spectrum: but you dont see ace people going around pretending they’re morally superior than everybody else, and many are actually very sex positive)   You would still love your partner if they were a different gender: that’s great, but that’s not how some (most) people feel, and they aren’t superficial because of this, just different from you.

Also, I think you’d really benefit from hearing a trans person say they don’t care if someone has genitalia preferences. Here it is. This obviously doesnt mean that every trans person will feel like she does, but it does mean that we can’t generalize trans experiences/preferences/what they feel transphobia is. Just like straight people dont get to say what’s homophobic or not, cis people dont get to say what’s transphobic or not. The definition of those terms relies entirely on the community that is targeted by these things.

I hope this wasnt excessively confusing but I wanted to make my point clear.

[rebelwheelssoapbox]

When Feminism Fails Feminists : A Love Letter To The Movement

by RebelwheelsNYC When I was a little girl growing up in the late 70's, my mother told me, time and again, that whatever I do, to always make sure that I had my own money, and to never – ever – be financially reliant on a man. Besides completely ruling out the option and existence of queer sexuality, it was the exact opposite of what was drilled into her, by her parents. Advice that she realized was not on point, during toxic marriage #1, where she initially had no financial way out of.

[image description: a baby in business attire, with a cellphone and laptop]

And so I became fiercely independent. If the neighborhood kids sold lemonade, I sold lemonade and iced tea. If local teenagers were charging 5 dollars per hour to babysit, I was charging a more competitive rate of 3 dollars per hour – which got me more gigs. (Though to be honest, this is also because I was 10 & 3 dollars per hour was big money. Why adults were leaving their very young children, sometimes toddlers, sometimes babies with a 10 year old, is a whole 'nother question. Yes, I was very mature for my age, but still... 10.) I was like a mini entrepreneur, always doing something to make money. I was behaving in a way that I perceived (and what was presented to me via my mother) as being an empowered woman, and although I didn't know the word as of yet – a feminist. My mother eventually went from the stay at home mom / housewife (which was frowned upon in mainstream feminist circles ) to the modern working woman of the corporate world (which was greatly revered). This was partially done I suppose as a feminist statement, a rebellion against what she was taught, but also it was of necessity to get out of a bad marriage.

[image description: a woman in a typical 80′s business suit, with huge shoulder pads. she is talking on a brick size 80′s cellphone.]

And while I was great at making money, one thing my mother never taught me (and I suspect no one ever taught her) was how to have a good, loving and mutually supportive relationship. Another being that money (although necessary and can be a certain kind of freedom) does not guarantee happiness. And so in order to lead a better life, I would eventually need to go beyond the kind of feminism that my mother taught me, just as she had to go beyond what her mother taught her. And of course, these days we know there is nothing less than about staying home and raising your kids (if that is what a woman chooses, and if that is an option, which it isn't for all people). In fact, it only has stigma when it's viewed and presented as a woman's “only path”. The toxic and false idea that a woman, at best, could only be three things in life. A daughter. A wife. A mother. That's it. And thus why back in the day, if a woman was a stay home mom and wife? She was a traitor. She was oppressed. She was not a real feminist. In the 90's I was exposed to a more academic, queer focused but still very white brand of feminism. It was also another instance where once again a feminist looked and behaved a certain way, if she was a real feminist. Short hair was seen by some as a sign of freedom. Long hair meant you were (in ways) oppressed, that the only possible reason you chose long hair is that you were a servant to the patriarchy and male gaze – when maybe you just liked to have longer hair.

[image description: two powerful woman stand with a raised fist of solidarity, and a proetest sign in their other hand. one sign reads “protect: black, asian, muslim, latinx, disabled, trans, fat, poor women”. the other sign reads “if you don’t fight for all women, you fight for no women.” ]  And I think this is where feminism sometimes fails the same people it is supposed to liberate. Yes, sometimes progress means rebelling against the norm, to even present that as an option, and that is a very important first step. Do note, in no way am I disparaging the activists and progress of the feminists who came before me. But if a movement never goes beyond that first step, where by default, it's the direct opposite of the norm, then the norm is still dictating the behavior and appearance of what qualifies as, in this case “a real feminist”. True liberation can only be achieved when we go beyond that first step, and let people be as they want to be, regardless if it happens to fit or go against the norm, or even varies and fluctuates as per their whim and mood, long as one is aware of the root of that decision : internalized oppression or liberation.

Humans are nuanced beings and one box will never fit all people. Furthermore replacing one box based on societal norms, with another box that is the default opposite of the norm, is still a box. One could reasonably argue, that this is not liberation or it's liberation, but only for some. For those who can comfortably conform, while excluding other people who can not. It goes without saying that the topic of feminism and liberation, is one that is complicated and nuanced, a topic that one could easily write a thesis on (and many have). It is also important to note that when I refer to feminism in this article, I am obviously referring to my own experience growing up, which was pretty much focused on liberation via financial means and the impact of sexism. In this way, I also needed to go beyond what I grew up with, because when we have a kind of feminism that doesn't acknowledge how various forms of discrimination (racism, LGBTQ+phobia – and yes this includes, transphobia - ableism, fatphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia and all other forms of oppression) intersect with the feminist struggle, and impact feminists from marginalized communities; when our feminism is not intersectional, and mostly focuses on the struggles of the cisgender heterosexual middle class white woman, this too fails feminists.

author’s note: I am a queer/bi, disabled (#DisabledAF) intersectional activist, writer, artist and nerd. While this was written with the intention of solidarity, sometimes I don’t always get it right. If you feel this article misses the mark in any way, I am open to constructive feedback. you can leave a comment or msg me privately.

[image description:  black and pink symbol of feminism]

[lemonsknees]

Is the Bible clear on Homosexuality?

reposting this here cause apparently while i was off learning about the Bible my other account got flagged, go figure  ¯\_(’-’)_/¯

I have been attending a bible college for a year now. Why? Because I have a passion for the Lord and have an unhealthy desire to know all the things. Now I would have attended regardless but I had some ulterior goals in mind when I started attending. I wanted to know what caused people to be homophobic. I myself am bisexual (though at the moment i’m very firmly at the back of the closet like I’m hanging out with C. S. Lewis in Narnia rn).  So the school doesn’t know about this. But I also have close family member who is apart of the LGBT that had a large hand in raising me and the school does know about them. so when I question into things like this the other students and the teachers think it’s on the basis of concern for them.

Now I could go on about the homophobic behaviors I noticed during the year, in fact I have a copy in which I tried to go through it and it just took to long to try to go over exactly what they were getting wrong every time. so instead of doing that I’d like to go over something that people said repeatedly which got on my nerves and kill it.

“The bible has a very clear view of homosexuality and if a church accepts people of the LGBT it means that they aren’t a Biblically accurate church”

The Bible doesn’t actually discuss homosexuality often at all. People like to look at verses about marriage but the Biblical examples of marriage aren’t exactly meant to be the ‘ideal.’ The book which supposedly the best example of what marriage is supposed to be like, The song of Solomon, was written by a man with multiple wives.

The occasions where the bible does talk about homosexuality it isn’t talking about a loving relationship between two people the way we understand it today. I’ll be looking at three (fourish) places where its talked about.

Sodom: this is one most people don’t really get caught up on if they’ve actually read the story instead of just thinking they know what sodomy means (it actually means any form of sexual activity which isn’t meant to produce children not specifically homosexual) the story of Sodom and Gomorra is that two angels entered the city and found lodging in Lot’s house. After they’d entered the house however they had to struggle to keep the people of the city out of the house because they wanted to drag the men out and rape them. lot’s response is to offer up his two daughters to them instead (an example of how even the people the Bible roots for aren’t people who we are meant to model our lives after) the crowds don’t accept Lot’s offer and God ultimately decides to destroy the city. Now having read this is it safe to assume that God destroyed the city because the people there were gay? Or was it maybe because they tried to gangrape foreigners?

This isn’t even the last instance in which we see this. In judges there’s a story that is very similar to this. A man is visiting and stays in someone’s house, the people of the town descend on the house and demand to be allowed to rape this man. The man who owns the house instead offers them the visitors mistress. This time they accept the offer and the woman is raped to death. This story is an awful one to read, and the narrative treats it as such, a war is started over the death of this woman. Because of the parallels between this story and the one of Sodom and Gomorra and how no one ever sights this as a story against homosexuality but against rape and the mistreatment of foreigners I think it is safe and Biblical to assume that Sodom was destroyed for the sins of such, rape and mistreatment of foreigners.

Leviticus has a law specifically against a man sleeping with another man, this is easily dismissible as another law that was only applicable to the Jewish people, but let’s look at why this would have been in place. Culturally woman were seen as lower than men, to sleep with another man would be seen as him lowering his partner to the status of a woman. Sexual relationships were barred outside of marriage, marriages were arranged for the purpose of bringing children, thus two men had no chance of ever getting married, thus making it unlawful by default. A man would be likely be cheating on his wife to do so. A woman sleeping with another woman would be seen as ruining her value as a virgin in an arranged marriage or other wise she would be cheating on her husband.  

Now all this to say that what is being described here is a far way off from committed gay relationships that are seen today and that cultural views have a huge impact on things like this. A lot of these things can be said about other points against gay marriage but I will try to avoid repeating myself.

It is also worth noting that the church has historically not taken the other Levitical laws which fall into the same category as seriously as they’ve taken this one.

Lastly for this I’d like to discuss Paul’s comments on the subject. Again we need to look at the cultural meaning of what he is saying. A lot of it is the same as before but now Paul is talking to the Greeks, who have a different culture than the Jewish people.  Non Jewish people,(gentiles) were allowed into the church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. When this decision was made the church had a large debate on whether or not gentile converts had to follow Levitical law. The ultimate decision was that they didn’t, (again a point against the Levitical law against this) the laws which the gentiles were however to follow were the ten commandments, they were to follow laws against idolatry (such as not eating any meat that had been offered to idols or other gods) and that they were to avoid fornication, or sexual intercourse between people not married to each other (again a main point here is that gay marriage wasn’t a thing even conceived at that time

Now those of you who know your history will know that the romans and Greeks were pretty gay. Paul knew this too and came against this pretty harshly. Why? Because being gay is a sin? Maybe. Or maybe because people were sleeping with one another at temples as a form of worship to the Greek gods, or maybe because all gay sex was extramarital. Or maybe because the view of sexuality at the time wasn’t I fall in love with such and such type of people. Instead people, when a person slept with a person of the same gender saw it as that person being so lustful that they wanted to sleep with everyone.

There’s also the point that the apostles were convinced that the end was coming any day. Paul was working as quickly as he could under the assumption that the end could be any day, going so far as to tell people it was better to just not get married unless you absolutely needed to in order to avoid fornication. He didn’t exactly think he had time to fix the social climate beyond declaring the Lord and condemning those who continued to sleep with those they were not married to.

So can the argument be made from a Biblical perspective against gay marriage and homosexual relationships? I won’t say no. in fact I’ve met plenty of people in my life who have committed themselves to being single in order to avoid being in sin. And if a persons convictions lean to that view I’d honestly recommend the same. If you’re convinced something is wrong you shouldn’t do it. But if you don’t have that sense, I want you to know that the Bible is in fact not clear on this issue. I was watch a video an atheist made about why he became so. One of the reasons he listed was he realized  that if people are born gay that means being gay is the only sin that a person is born into. Don’t let this be the thing that destroys your faith. Don’t let the church be a stumbling block to Jesus. Don’t let them dismiss you in this way. The Bible isn’t clear on this. There are other arguments out there with as much biblical validity as the argument that it’s wrong. I’d recommend that a person prayerfully listen to both sides of this if they are looking for which is true. I obviously have a preference but you shouldn’t just accept what I say, instead please go and do your own research on the subject and find people who are respectful and willing to talk to you about this. if you wanna talk to me i’m definitely open to listening. (actually i’d be really excited that someone wanted to talk to me)

sorry that this is more an argument against homophobia than something like against Transphobia, i’ve sort of been hyper focusing on the subject,but if you’re trans and want some encouragement then i suggest you read Galatians 3:28!

i’m not on tumblr often anymore but my discord is  lemons knqueezies#6065 so feel free to talk to me there, or if you didn’t like this feel free to send me funny and clever insults to my character!

have a great day :D God Bless!

[lemonsknqueezies]

Is the Bible clear about Homosexuality?

k so i know i don’t exactly know what else to do with this. i just really need to get this out of my head and i think it might be helpful to somebody out there. 

I have been attending a bible college for a year now. Why? Because I have a passion for the Lord and have an unhealthy desire to know all the things. Now I would have attended regardless but I had some ulterior goals in mind when I started attending. I wanted to know what caused people to be homophobic. I myself am bisexual (though at the moment i’m very firmly at the back of the closet like I’m hanging out with C. S. Lewis in Narnia rn).  So the school doesn’t know about this. But I also have close family member who is apart of the LGBT that had a large hand in raising me and the school does know about them. so when I question into things like this the other students and the teachers think it’s on the basis of concern for them.

Now I could go on about the homophobic behaviors I noticed during the year, in fact I have a copy in which I tried to go through it and it just took to long to try to go over exactly what they were getting wrong every time. so instead of doing that I’d like to go over something that people said repeatedly which got on my nerves and kill it.

“The bible has a very clear view of homosexuality and if a church accepts people of the LGBT it means that they aren’t a Biblically accurate church”

The Bible doesn’t actually discuss homosexuality often at all. People like to look at verses about marriage but the Biblical examples of marriage aren’t exactly meant to be the ‘ideal.’ The book which supposedly the best example of what marriage is supposed to be like, The song of Solomon, was written by a man with multiple wives.

The occasions where the bible does talk about homosexuality it isn’t talking about a loving relationship between two people the way we understand it today. I’ll be looking at three (fourish) places where its talked about.

Sodom: this is one most people don’t really get caught up on if they’ve actually read the story instead of just thinking they know what sodomy means (it actually means any form of sexual activity which isn’t meant to produce children not specifically homosexual) the story of Sodom and Gomorra is that two angels entered the city and found lodging in Lot’s house. After they’d entered the house however they had to struggle to keep the people of the city out of the house because they wanted to drag the men out and rape them. lot’s response is to offer up his two daughters to them instead (an example of how even the people the Bible roots for aren’t people who we are meant to model our lives after) the crowds don’t accept Lot’s offer and God ultimately decides to destroy the city. Now having read this is it safe to assume that God destroyed the city because the people there were gay? Or was it maybe because they tried to gangrape foreigners?

This isn’t even the last instance in which we see this. In judges there’s a story that is very similar to this. A man is visiting and stays in someone’s house, the people of the town descend on the house and demand to be allowed to rape this man. The man who owns the house instead offers them the visitors mistress. This time they accept the offer and the woman is raped to death. This story is an awful one to read, and the narrative treats it as such, a war is started over the death of this woman. Because of the parallels between this story and the one of Sodom and Gomorra and how no one ever sights this as a story against homosexuality but against rape and the mistreatment of foreigners I think it is safe and Biblical to assume that Sodom was destroyed for the sins of such, rape and mistreatment of foreigners.

 Leviticus has a law specifically against a man sleeping with another man, this is easily dismissible as another law that was only applicable to the Jewish people, but let’s look at why this would have been in place. Culturally woman were seen as lower than men, to sleep with another man would be seen as him lowering his partner to the status of a woman. Sexual relationships were barred outside of marriage, marriages were arranged for the purpose of bringing children, thus two men had no chance of ever getting married, thus making it unlawful by default. A man would be likely be cheating on his wife to do so. A woman sleeping with another woman would be seen as ruining her value as a virgin in an arranged marriage or other wise she would be cheating on her husband.  

Now all this to say that what is being described here is a far way off from committed gay relationships that are seen today and that cultural views have a huge impact on things like this. A lot of these things can be said about other points against gay marriage but I will try to avoid repeating myself.

It is also worth noting that the church has historically not taken the other Levitical laws which fall into the same category as seriously as they’ve taken this one.

 Lastly for this I’d like to discuss Paul’s comments on the subject. Again we need to look at the cultural meaning of what he is saying. A lot of it is the same as before but now Paul is talking to the Greeks, who have a different culture than the Jewish people.  Non Jewish people,(gentiles) were allowed into the church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. When this decision was made the church had a large debate on whether or not gentile converts had to follow Levitical law. The ultimate decision was that they didn’t, (again a point against the Levitical law against this) the laws which the gentiles were however to follow were the ten commandments, they were to follow laws against idolatry (such as not eating any meat that had been offered to idols or other gods) and that they were to avoid fornication, or sexual intercourse between people not married to each other (again a main point here is that gay marriage wasn’t a thing even conceived at that time

Now those of you who know your history will know that the romans and Greeks were pretty gay. Paul knew this too and came against this pretty harshly. Why? Because being gay is a sin? Maybe. Or maybe because people were sleeping with one another at temples as a form of worship to the Greek gods, or maybe because all gay sex was extramarital. Or maybe because the view of sexuality at the time wasn’t I fall in love with such and such type of people. Instead people, when a person slept with a person of the same gender saw it as that person being so lustful that they wanted to sleep with everyone.

There’s also the point that the apostles were convinced that the end was coming any day. Paul was working as quickly as he could under the assumption that the end could be any day, going so far as to tell people it was better to just not get married unless you absolutely needed to in order to avoid fornication. He didn’t exactly think he had time to fix the social climate beyond declaring the Lord and condemning those who continued to sleep with those they were not married to.

So can the argument be made from a Biblical perspective against gay marriage and homosexual relationships? I won’t say no. in fact I’ve met plenty of people in my life who have committed themselves to being single in order to avoid being in sin. And if a persons convictions lean to that view I’d honestly recommend the same. If you’re convinced something is wrong you shouldn’t do it. But if you don’t have that sense, I want you to know that the Bible is in fact not clear on this issue. I was watch a video an atheist made about why he became so. One of the reasons he listed was he realized  that if people are born gay that means being gay is the only sin that a person is born into. Don’t let this be the thing that destroys your faith. Don’t let the church be a stumbling block to Jesus. Don’t let them dismiss you in this way. The Bible isn’t clear on this. There are other arguments out there with as much biblical validity as the argument that it’s wrong. I’d recommend that a person prayerfully listen to both sides of this if they are looking for which is true. I obviously have a preference but you shouldn’t just accept what I say, instead please go and do your own research on the subject and find people who are respectful and willing to talk to you about this. if you wanna talk to me i’m definitely open to listening. (actually i’d be really excited that someone wanted to talk to me) 

sorry that this is more an argument against homophobia than something like against Transphobia, i’ve sort of been hyper focusing on the subject,but if you’re trans and want some encouragement then i suggest you read Galatians 3:28!

i’m not on tumblr often anymore but my discord is  lemons knqueezies#6065 so feel free to talk to me there, or if you didn’t like this feel free to send me funny and clever insults to my character!

have a great day :D God Bless!

[mogai-monsters-and-more]

Hey! Do you think that NB people are valid? I agree MOGAI is negative, but I think NB people are cool. It’s based in fact and culture (I’m a transmed too)

Feel free to not read if you want :)

Trying to keep this blog discourse free, so I’m not gonna engage in any in this post or any others. I personally don’t like the word ‘valid’ in this situation, I think Tumblr’s driven it into the grown and made the emotional connotation so intense with something being ‘valid’ or ‘validated’ that the word itself or assigning something as ‘valid’ just no longer holds any weight for me. 

Now obviously, I don’t care if someone is cis or trans or nonbinary or whatever, I try to see people for the people they are, and I won’t judge them based on their labels. I’d never be mean to or harass someone who is nonbinary, and I’d certainly never tell someone who calls themselves a ‘dysphoric nonbinary’ or someone who says they suffer form ‘nonbinary dysphoria’ a faker or a trender or anything of the like, because I have absolutely no right to tell someone their distress or pain isn’t real. However, as for my own personal opinion, I don’t think nonbinarism is real. The cultural identities people use to back it up are often rooted in heavy sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. These third genders tend to be the result of strict gender roles that, when broken, condemn the person to being neither gender, or at least, not the gender they are. It kind of follows the line of ‘oh, you’re what we consider feminine and fulfil more feminine roles in our society despite being a man? Oh, you experience attraction to men like women typically do? Well, I guess you don’t get to be a man anymore’’ or vice versa. Additionally, instead of people being heralded as trans by the people who support these cultural third genders actually being considered a their true gender by their peers, they too seem shoved to the side under the thoughts of ‘well you say you aren’t a man, but CLEARLY, you aren’t a woman despite saying you are. We’ll give you a new third label that doesn’t allow you to be a man OR a woman but instead an ‘other’ and just call it good, m’kay?’ To me, a ton of these third genders seem to just be glorified cases of homophobia, transphobia, and sexism that people seem okay with because ‘it’s just their culture’, and I can’t jive with that, I can’t jive with taking away someone’s right to be who they are as a man or a woman because they’re different. I know of a masterpost debunking a massive amount of cultural ‘third genders’, but unfortunately, I can’t find it at the moment, I’m sorry about that :(

As for scientific proof, I’ve yet to see any that I find convincing. Brains have been proven to be just as sexed as bodies, and a mismatching brain and body sex has been shown to be the cause of being trans. As an obvious extention, the reason people are cis and don’t experience gender dysphoria is because their brain and physical sex match. The dissonance of having a brain of one sex and body of another results in gender dysphoria, the treatment of which is transition. Although the cause of the mismatch is unclear (What we know now is that it’s likely the result of a hormonal change in utero, as the brain sex develops before physical sex, but we don’t know everything about that yet), the mismatch is the proven reason for dysphoria and transsexualism. Following this, the only logical thing that would result in true ‘nonbinary dysphoria’ or an actual nonbinary person would have to be a sexed body mismatched with an unsexed brain, and honestly, that doesn’t seem physically possible. It seems just as physically impossible as a baby born with a completely unsexed body. I have never heard of a toe to tip unsexed person in my life, save for possibly miscarried fetuses with intense physical deformities. As a result, I’d think that an unsexed brain, especially one in a physically healthy adult human being is just not something that would happen. As a result, I don’t think that nonbinary dysphoria is possible, and as a result, I don’t think nonbinarism is possible. I can’t say for certain, but I think a lot of ‘nonbinary dysphoria’ or ‘atypical dysphoria’ and the like is either A) another condition that the person is mistaking for gender dysphoria or B) just plain old gender dysphoria being mislabeled due to some reason, such as a misunderstanding of gender dysphoria and what it is, not knowing gender dysphoria can be mild, severe, fluctuating , steady, etc., internalized transphobia, someone having difficulty understanding exactly what they’re feeling, and the like. There definitely isn’t just one reason. 

All of that being said, I am definitely open to objective scientific studies delving further into this issue! There’s a ton we don’ t understand about the brain, and any research into it is a win in my eyes. Additionally, to repeat, I will never be mean, disrespectful, rude, or anything of the like to anyone for being nonbinary. Never. That isn’t how I treat people. I’d also never go out of my way to tell anyone who called themselves nonbinary that I didn’t think nonbinarism existed, I’d never harass them as a result, I’d treat them just as kindly as I try to treat everyone else even if we have differing opinions, and I’d be happy to try to support them as best I could if they needed it in anything. Again, I promise I’m not trying to upset anyone, I certainly won’t judge anyone for being nonbinary, and just like I always do, I’d treat them just as I will anyone else. I hope that answers your question! :)

[sainte-artemis]

am i hallucinating ?

I agree that hating trans men based on the fact that you hate males is stupid and probably a way to hide your transphobia (or weird and twisted misogyny if it's only aimed at transmen). Because is doesn't make any sense. Because yes indeed, trans men are not males (or cis men as you say) and mostly not socialized as such for a crucial and most of the time very big part of their lives.

So .... obviously hating (or 'hating') maleness doesn't make you inherently transphobic wtf ?? Nor is separating them from maleness (as in their biological sex). And yes saying i hate men when you're a woman holds barely any power... Just like in the skin colour case. Or maybe there's reverse sexism I don't know about ?

And it's not even a 'terf' way of thinking, bc i guess you're probably referring to radfems and most of them make this distinctions between biological sex and gender, hence not considering trans men in the same way they do cis men, bc they are not male...

And that's kind of the wholepoint of actual terfs??? (With transwomen i mean) they hate transwomen because they are not cis-women, hence not female. Like ??

Do you even know anything about the people you're criticizing ? Because honestly to me this kind of reflection you're talking about seems to be more rooted in pure queer and/or liberal thinking, rather than the one on which radfems (if you're thinking about them) or terfs from any kind of political side base their theories

If you believe maleness is an inherently bad thing (all men bad, etc) you are a terf and you are not pro trans: (super hot scalding take)

The terf aspect is easy enough for me to explain. If you think men are inherently bad, then you automatically submit to the idea that trans men are going to the bad side by identifying as men. You are a terf.

And for the pro trans aspect: You cannot say "I hate trans men not because they're trans, but because they're men". You cannot separate the two. A trans man is a man because they are trans and they are trans because they are a man. Being a man is the REASON trans men are trans. If you hate their maleness, you also hate their transness. To you, trans men are the wrong kind of trans. You are not pro trans.

Now to go even more in depth why hating maleness is inherently transphobic.

Often queer people treat maleness the same as whiteness. "Men are the oppressors like white people are, therefore dunking on men is the same as dunking on white people!". This is incorrect mindset to have.

This is going to be my way explaining why in some cases “I hate [insert group]” is okay in some cases while “I hate men” is not okay.

With being white in every single case means you hold a place of power and privilege. It does not matter if you are part of any sort of a minority group. If you are white you hold power over every person of color. You are inherently the oppressor.

This is not the same with being a man.

Being man does mean you inherently hold a place of power and privilege. Trans men are a clear case of that. Trans men do not hold any power and do not have "male privilege" (I want to rename it cis male privilege but thats a post for another time). ONLY cis men hold a place of power and privilege and can be oppressors. Therefore being a man does mean you inherently are the oppressor. If you say things like "men are oppressors" and not "cis men are oppressors", you have reduced maleness to CIS maleness. You have excluded trans men from your concept of maleness.

In summary being a man does not mean you inherently have power like it is with whiteness.You are the oppressor conditionally when being a man. You are the oppressor unconditionally when being white.This is why poc saying they hate white people is okay because all of them are oppressors, making it justifiable while hating all men isn't okay because not all of them are oppressors making it not justifiable.

We need to start making things less about non-men vs men and more "transness vs cisness".

The hating all men sentiment use to be "acceptable" when transness was not a part of the mainstream and everything was simply cis women vs cis men. Back then, all men = cis men. But now that we are aware of trans people, specifically trans men, we need to adapt and update our language. This men bad stuff is simply a result of the bioessentialist ideals.

And to make a scenario up if you still think hating all men is okay because cis men are bad, I'll give you this:

It's like saying anyone attracted to women are bad because cishet men are attracted to women. Just because an aspect is a privilege for one group of people does not mean that aspect is deserving of hate or everyone with that aspect is privileged

By saying “all men bad”, you must either believe trans men are oppressors (something that justifies trans men being inherently bad) or you have separated trans men from maleness. Either one, you're transphobic

[cesium-sheep]

ugh, well. summary for record-keeping so I can stop thinking about it. she was much nicer to me at the end at least, even though she’ll still need to talk to me tomorrow.

it seems like what happened was that matt baume is a cis gay man, who talks about general queer stuff in media but this episode was focused on gay clubs. arin saw a (presumably cis, since the guy does his research and referred to him with he/him pronouns) drag queen on screen while a cis gay man was talking and shorted out, because she’d experienced significant distress while out shopping today and was primed to be Real Goopy about anyone regarding trans experiences as comparable to cis queer experiences, even though that didn’t actually come up at all in the video. she said some random really undirected shit about gay men don’t have it the same as trans women, made some vague noises about voice dysphoria, never connected any of it to a thought, got real snippy at me any time I tried to prompt her into directionality or offer a side comment, then went out on the porch.

she came back in and I continued trying to feel out whether she was actually trying to voice a thought or whether she was just venting goop (onto me), we ended up getting into an argument which is how I find out the shopping thing. I make a few points about I am a biromantic asexual nonbinary disabled autistic, while I don’t know the specific distress of which bathroom to use because there is none for my gender (which I didn’t even know was the root of the distress at hand because she was being incredibly vague and wandering in her bitterness) I am very familiar with any of my in-groups being viewed as fun targets (in fact the trans-woman targeting hate image she showed me trying to get. something. across was also bitterly ironic in that it presumed actual availability of disability accessible bathrooms). she kinda seems to be under the impression that just because I know how to keep the worst of the transphobia out of my spaces I don’t know it exists? which is. obviously ridiculous.

eventually somehow I point out that I am not trying to belittle or dismiss any of her concerns, I am just trying to figure out if she’s trying to say something or just spew bile, and also I’m fucking terrified. because she just said I had nothing to worry about and then dredged up that pitch black bitterness that always comes with a heaping helping of literally nothing I say will be right, including just leaving the conversation, and it just feels like awful sludge to even be exposed to it as a fairly empathetic person, and she gets so fucking mean and awful. I pointed out that’s not actually her, and she expressed doubt, so we walked through point a, she has seen me be a stone cold unrepentant bitch sometimes but she doesn’t assume that’s who I am as a person, point b she doesn’t think I’m inherently superior to her, so point c it can be true for her too. I pointed out she used to do this a lot and it hurts and I’m scared but if she actually wanted to talk about something I’d strap in and see it through, but it took. a fair few number of tries to actually convey to her that I was hurt by her behavior. which also hurts.

eventually she does give an actual decent apology that’s not just “I’m sorry being trans sucks and I’m mad about it” although I can’t actually remember it cuz she kept poking at the wound a little longer. she said she really needed to go to bed. she let me hug her and I started to melt down but I pushed her away after a bit because she said she really needed to go to bed. (and then she prodded at it one more time anyway.)

so I went and had a meltdown on the floor on the opposite side of the apartment for a while and it managed to coalesce into “I want my wife”, but I was really afraid of bothering her, especially since she was already currently in bitter mode. eventually I managed to walk in and ask if she was still awake and she responded right away and I just asked her to be nice to me for a minute. so she held my hand and said she loves me even when she’s frustrated and she still wants to marry me and lots of nice reassuring stuff and when I started crying again she sat up to hug me for a little while and she said if I need her to be nice to me some more before bed I can wake her up and she won’t be mad at me even though she really needed to go to bed. that helped a lot. I was probably going to end up sleeping on the floor for perceived safety if she hadn’t done that for me. I don’t know that I’ve ever intentionally woken her up for comfort before, I think I assumed it wasn’t allowed? I’ve definitely wanted to. (I don’t know that I’ve ever intentionally woken her up for anything other than knowing she doesn’t want to sleep in too late even if she didn’t set an alarm.) but she said I’m allowed to wake her up again if I need to. she’s woken me up before when she has bad dreams sometimes. (normally if she’s sick I wake up on my own.)