#this is about a division in how white privilege is used as a term not about the actuality of white privilege

[cascadianights]

I've been trying to put this into words for a While now

I think a big reason a lot of white people have an issue with acknowledging their very real Privilege (beyond the obvious) is that... ok, its the presence of benefits and perks & the absence of barriers and obstacles. But the default assumption of white privilege, of what those benefits or obstacles ARE, is essentially the archetype of a WASP - generally a male one too. This nebulous, theoretical group of perks & lack of barriers that people often present as white privilege (when in reality then tend to be talking about CLASS) fails to capture the lived reality of a VAST, HUGE majority of poor white people.

They're going to be hostile to the idea that they had opportunities to advance in the workplace that others didn't, when they worked the same shit job at the mill their entire short life. The idea that they had alumni family to help secure them a good spot at a college their parents paid for, rather than being the first person in their family to go to even community college just to have to drop out and take care of siblings. The idea that they lived life with financial and food stability, when they grew up in a family of 8 siblings having a slice of bread each for breakfast and lunch because their mom couldn't access birth control and their dad was an abusive drunk. These aren't theoretical exceptions! This isn't the minority of white people, this is the reality for MILLIONS of people!!

There are absolutely things that apply across the board when talking about white privilege - situations a white person will never face because they are white, that a black person will face because they are black. But is that divide, based on race instead of assumptions about class, really the image conjured by/for many people when we talk about white privilege now? Especially in current liberal circles, where any level of privilege can be used to discredit and dismiss someone's reality - to declare them exempt from a huge swath of dangers, and benefit to a theoretical upper class lifestyle of relative ease. The logic follows that if the speaker is white, or white-passing, much about their life can be assumed and much can be written off that they could not possibly understand or have experienced - they must out and offer another aspect of their identity (disabled, queer, fat, etc) to show they have any right to speak on marginalization. Being white protects you around cops, until the moment you're dirt poor, or disabled, or visibly trans, or just the right queer body they were looking to teach a lesson to that night. Being white protects you in our current government, until you're a felon with no vote, or a disabled person declared unfit to make your own decisions and sterilized.

All this to say, liberals cannot keep clinging to the idea & narrative that white equals automatic access to a huge amount of privileges and protections that are actually Hugely reliant on class and a lack of intersecting identities. Dirt poor people who hear "white privilege" used almost exclusively to describe WASPS, from the mouths of the Liberal Left who have ignored the plight of the rural poor for decades, who are ACTIVELY making jokes about stupid southerners and how we should just cut off parts of the country and let them drown, will not result in them listening! They will not go self introspect about their own biases! They will not look up the real nuances of white privilege and class privilege and how those are linked but not inextricably. They will not think about how to eliminate barriers and create opportunities for other people. They WILL be further alienated from the left and being able to actually look into their very real privilege in the future though!!

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is the first time I've clearly seen the actual revisions a state education department (Virginia) is making to a high school elective course on African American history (which focuses on that history in Virginia) because of a GOP governor's (i.e. Glenn Youngkin's) executive order prohibiting “inherently divisive concepts” from public schools.

This is a link to an archived article, so anyone can read the entire article. Below are some charts in the article that show the recommended revisions:

It is clear from the above chart that the reviewers want any mention of systemic racism and White privilege to be eliminated from the course, even though there is clear evidence that both exist.

It is also deeply concerning that any discussion of "implicit bias and stereotypes" is banned, even though those of us in the social sciences know that implicit bias and stereotyping exist. To prevent high school students from learning about these concepts is a blatant attempt to keep them ignorant.

Again, based on the chart above, the proposed revisions have done away with any discussion of the ubiquitous nature of racism or the fact that systemic racism exists. Instead the proposed revisions focus on (presumably overt) "discriminatory practices," while ignoring the subtle ways that racism has affected the Black population over the years, including the way it affected returning WWII Black veterans.

[See more under the cut.]

Furthermore, according to the proposed revisions, the term "White supremacist" cannot even be used. I wonder how the reviewers expect teachers to be able to describe the ideology of members of the KKK?

The reviewers also apparently want to pretend the University of Virginia wasn't involved with the Eugenics movement, since they took out a reference to it. In addition, the proposed revisions wouldn't allow the Eugenics movement to be called a "pseudo science." Are teachers supposed to claim it was "science"?

The reviewers also apparently want to forbid a discussion of how Eugenics was used in Virginia "to control African Americans," which indeed it reportedly was.

Furthermore, the recommended revisions falsely assume that redlining no longer exists, and that historical redlining no longer has an impact. Although it is not as overt as it once was, redlining does still exist in various forms and the impact of older redlining practices still have negative affects on Black populations.

From what I can tell, the proposed revisions have NOTHING to do with trying to stop students from feeling "uncomfortable" in classrooms. Discomfort naturally occurs for all of us when we learn about things that go against what we previously believed. But that is how people learn and grow.

And if the GOP wanted to stop "liberal" teachers from "indoctrinating" their students into "left-wing ideas," they would simply have legislated the presentation of two sides of an argument, AS LONG AS both sides were factually-based and rational. (For instance, there is NO factual or rational argument that the Holocaust didn't happen or wasn't as destructive as it was).

But the GOP politicians want to BAN the discussion of any view of history and society, however factually and rationally based, that goes against their whitewashed ideas of how history should be presented. In other words, the GOP wants schools to indoctrinate students into a right-wing way of viewing history and society that favors Whites.

This is incredibly regressive, and reminiscent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy's attempts to ensure "The Lost Cause" mythology was taught in schools.

[autolenaphilia]

I finally found a definition of "radical feminism" from a transandrophobia dude. Like I lamented before that they calls trans women "radfems" without defining what they mean by that term, and here i get an answer. It's terrible, but an attempt was made.

I won't link to it, it was left as a very lengthy, rambling and sealiony reply to a mutual's post complaining about this very behaviour, and that dude doesn't deserve any additional attention giving to his ravings. Believe me, whatever I screenshot is worse in context. The context being a transfem saying "don't do this thing" and a guy deciding to do this exact thing for over 30 paragraphs as a reply.

But here is a relevant screenshot.

His definition of radical feminism is literally: "making a distinction between oppressor and oppressed." And It's literally any distinction, not just between that between men and women in the patriarchy. As he proves when he condemns tme/tma distinction as terfy:

Like tme/tma is a binary, but it's one that includes a lot of varying groups in the oppressor class, including cis women, much to the anger of actual terfs. This definition of radical feminism is literally believing in the oppressor-oppressed distinction.

The problem with this definition is that making a clear distinction between the oppressor and the oppressed is a fundamental part of analyzing oppression.

Saying that in a patriarchy men have male privilege, and institutional power over women, who are oppressed by misogyny, is a true statement and a fundamental part of feminist theory. And saying that in a white supremacist society, white people have white privilege and institutional power over non-white people, who are oppressed by racism is also true and is vital to analyzing racism and white supremacy. And queer tumblrites practically all agree that in a cisheteronormative society cishet people have privilege and power over queer people.

These are binary statements to be sure, and simplistic because they are only analyzing one form of oppression, and not studying their intersectionality, but they are also obviously true. It's in recognizing how they are simultaneously true that forms the basis of any intersectional analysis.

It's not radical feminism, when marxist, anti-racist analysis, queer theory and other forms of feminism all rely on these distinctions between the oppressed and their oppressor class. If we are going by this definition of radfem, Karl Marx was a radfem, and so was probably Hegel, and W.E.B. Du Bois.

And again, this is a way of using the label terf/radfem to label all feminist analysis as suspect, including transfeminist analysis by trans women, you know the people actual terfs want to genocide.

It's a tactic right out the right-wing conservative playbook to label any discussion of how people are oppressed as divisive and making the oppressed into angelic victims that do no wrong.

It's basically another variation of what I call Farrell's fallacy, here the existence of other forms of oppressions is used to deny misogyny. "If men are privileged, why do marginalized men exist, checkmate feminists" Misogyny is nuanced out of existence, where the term "intersectionality" (a method that in reality includes a lot of feminist analysis of misogyny) is used as a club to deny misogyny. Feminists are strawmanned to lack intersectional analysis, when they are in fact at the forefront of it.

And you can do this to deny any form of oppression. You can point out that the oppressor class for practically every oppression has members that are marginalized for other reasons, and thus deny they have any privilege at all.

Of course antifeminist tumblr queers do love doing this to misogyny to deny their own complicity in it, while oppressions that they feel is important (because it affects them) is exempt from this treatment. Like you could nuance the existence of straight and cis privilege out of existence by pointing out that "cishet" covers a lot of marginalized people, like women, non-white and disabled cishets all exist.

Actual terfs do in fact use misogyny in that way, they have their own version of farrell's fallacy where they say "how dare you say we have cis privilege, women suffer from misogyny."

And of course, it's wrong for all the reasons i outlined in my post about the fallacy linked above. People can simultaneously be oppressed and privileged for different reasons. You can see cis privilege when you compare the outcomes and social status of cis and trans women for example. And people who are queer in addition to being non-white and disabled have worse outcomes than cishet disabled and non-white people. Just as you can see male privilege when comparing men and women who are oppresssed for the same reasons.

The reality is intersectional analysis answers this seeming contradiction without denying that the existence of any oppression and privileges given to the oppressor class. It's the difference of using the existence of other oppression to deepens one understanding of society, and to deny that one particular oppression exist at all.

[wildwren]

the artful dodger meta dump

So I’ve been making a lot of Artful Dodger gifs and recommending it to people, etc, so I feel like now’s a good time to get down some thoughts about what I liked about the writing and what I wish they’d done better. I’m not intimately familiar with Oliver Twist the novel, so this won’t be an analysis of how the show succeeds as an adaptation or sequel. Rather, I’m assessing the show on its own terms and examining specific characterizations as they relate to gender and race.

warning: spoilers for the entire series

lady belle fox

The most divisive character in The Artful Dodger is without a doubt the female main character, Lady Belle Fox. Belle is a deeply intelligent and ambitious young white woman. She’s also the daughter of the colonial governor, existing in the highest strata of privilege her society can offer — excepting being a man. She’s very forward, bossy, egotistical, often self-serving and occasionally mean. She is, as the kids say, “unlikeable.”

So, is this the dreaded girlbossification in action? I don’t personally find the term “girlboss” to be a useful descriptor for analyzing female characterization, but if you find it useful, go right ahead. However, I do take issue with the accusations of “lazy girlboss writing” because I think the extremes of Belle’s characterization are pretty clearly a feature and not a bug.

The writing gives extensive in-story explanations for why Belle is Like This. She was raised by a wickedly smart mother, Lady Jane, whose marriage to Belle's fuddy-duddy father is a transparent front for her own personal ambitions. She essentially administers the colony herself while her husband works in the garden. Lady Jane recognizes these same qualities in her daughter and actively encourages them, steering Belle in the direction of similarly weak-willed young men who Belle might be able to manipulate into letting her lead the life she wants: one of medical study and practice. This is essentially how she approaches her relationship with Jack from the get-go. She sees him as a man she can manipulate and domineer for her own ends. The problem is, Jack isn’t actually a patsy. He’s a true match, and one of unfortunately unmarriageable quality.

The focus of Belle’s ambition is also not random. She’s has a chronic degenerative heart condition, one which she’s had to research and diagnose for herself, because the doctors around her have failed to give her useful information. It makes sense that her formidable intelligence would end up hyperfixating on medicine and surgery as a means of addressing her own illness.

Due to these factors — the matriarchal power structure of her family in combination with the patriarchal privilege of her culture — Belle can get away with almost anything. She throws her weight around the colony without consequence, invoking her father’s name at will without any of her father’s retribution. The writing certainly takes some liberties with anachronism, but this isn’t just a case of placing a modern woman in a period setting. They've made intentional characterization choices to back it up.

The writing is also very aware of Belle’s flaws and the tension they create with other characters. Belle’s privileged position makes it difficult for her to see the world from the same perspective as Jack. This is most notable in episode 6, when Belle tries to defend her father’s “law and order” crackdown as a necessary measure to control crime, and Jack has to explain to her the concept of structural violence. She’s also called out by Red, the outlaw who’s life Belle saves by means of an emergency surgery. Although Belle lies to protect her, Red doesn’t excuse Belle for her role in colonial project: “Your family are the biggest thieves in Port Victory.”

I was impressed with how this particular subplot was executed with regards to Belle’s arc. It doesn't feel like a “turn to the camera" teaching moment. It feels instead like the inevitable consequence of the tension that arises when people develop relationships across class and life experience. (“If you can’t see what’s happening here, Belle, then you and I have big problems. This puts a wall between us.”) It also doesn't feel like a misogynistic hit designed to take Belle down a peg. Her ego is healthy enough to get through unscathed.

However, there are some aspects of Belle’s specific brand of white feminism that aren’t as well executed. Most notable is her relationship with Hetty. Hetty is a hard-working nurse and Catholic woman of color who works in the hospital. She is increasingly sidelined both in her professional role and her role in Jack’s life by Belle’s self-empowering self-insertion into the surgical room. There’s clear tension between them, and understandable disapproval from Hetty towards Belle and Jack’s indulgence of Belle’s ego. However, this tension is never fully explored. By the end of the series, Hetty and Belle appear to be friends, or at least allies, with no discernible explanation. Is Hetty just that much bigger of a person? Does she think a rising tide will lift all ships? We don’t know, because her motivations are never examined. The closest we get is an introspective moment that implies Hetty’s unrequited feelings for Jack, which does little to explain her acceptance of Belle’s role in the hospital. It’s end up being unsatisfying, a disservice to Hetty’s quite interesting potential as a character.

jack’s gang

However, I think where the writing suffers most is in its failure to examine Jack’s whiteness and privilege. Jack identifies strongly as a have-not, despite having gained some power and privilege as a doctor, and over the course of the story, he ends up surrounded by a crew of other have-nots, most of whom are men of color. His closest friend before Fagin returns is an aboriginal man named Tim, an engineer (and partner to the outlaw Red) who makes prosthetic arms and legs for amputees. There’s potential here, but this relationship is never really examined. We don’t learn how they met or what drew them together, besides apparently working in the same building.

The only tension between them comes when Jack tries to guilt Tim into doing him a favor based on Jack’s previous generosity, and Tim hits back from an equal position: “Pricey, isn’t it? Your loyalty?” But just as with Hetty, this tension is dropped, and Tim’s and Jack’s goals are essentially aligned for the rest of the story. The other members of Jack and Fagin’s gang get even less exploration. On the one hand, it’s a gang of thieves getting up to silly hijinks — they’re not each going to have a fleshed out character arc. On the other hand, the characterization choices uphold some harmful colonial optics, where a diverse crew of characters answer to two white men as the explicit brains of the operation.

red

The best treatment for a character of color is almost certainly Frances ‘Red’ Scrubbs, a sharp-shooting aboriginal woman and a crafty outlaw (partner to Tim). This is definitely because Miranda Tapsell, the actress who portrays Red, was tapped as a consulting writer. (!!!!!). Red’s not a member of Fagin’s gang but a leader of her own crew, and she serves as a sort of playful nemesis to Fagin for the first few episodes, often outfoxing him or beating him to a steal. She also gets a subplot arc of her own, and is the source of the show’s most effective anti-colonial messaging. She embodies an ethos of unapologetic indigenous resistance. Her occasional solidarity with Fagin and Jack is always conditional on her own right to survive and thrive. Her distrust of the colonial medical system she must rely on to escape the noose is the closest the show gets to exploring medical trauma as structural violence (it’s still a very light dive.) The story ends with her taking revenge on the hateful lawman who targeted her and returning to the bush to live with her daughter.

If anything, the show could have benefited from more Red, a deeper exploration of her world and her gang outside of her interactions with Fagin and Jack. But one can understand how that might have been outside the scope of the showrunners' intentions.

At the end of the day, The Artful Dodger is a white-centric narrative. The focus of the story is the relationship between Jack and Fagin and the relationship between Jack and Belle, and both of these dynamics are excellently written. If it’s renewed for a Season Two, I hope they can extend the scope to give space for more complex narratives like Red's.

[beardedmrbean]

The BBC has admitted that the concept of “white privilege” is contested after its youth-focused news service received a complaint over its “controversial” definition of the term.

An article dedicated to teaching children about the concept, which includes sections defining the term and explaining how people can “use white privilege for good”, was branded as politically partisan by campaigners.

Now the article, originally published in 2020, has been signposted with a link to a new explainer that “examines arguments about the concept’s use” and admits it is a “contested area”.

It comes after the campaign group Don’t Divide Us, which seeks to promote a “common sense” approach to race, complained to the broadcaster.

The group’s director said that they were “pleased” with the addition but added that the original content should not remain on the Newsround site where children can read the “divisive” resource.

Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert told The Telegraph: “Although we’re pleased the BBC has recognised ‘white privilege’ is a contested term, the original content remains on the Newsround site, where children will continue to read its historical distortions about black and white people in America.

“No educator or broadcaster should be pushing controversial, US-imported ideology to schoolchildren as fact.

“As the national broadcaster, the BBC has a duty towards impartiality as set out in its own editorial standards. Telling children that they are inherently privileged or disadvantaged purely because of their race is divisive and has no place within any educational resource for children.”

The new resource on Newsround is titled: “What do people mean by white privilege and why do they have different views about it?”

The article explains that the concept shot to the forefront of the public sphere after the death of George Floyd in America in 2020, but adds that it is a “term that some people find unhelpful”.

It reads: “There is also debate as to how accurate it is and how useful it is in tackling racism and inequality.”

Explaining how the term is sometimes applied, the Newsround article states: “For some people the concept of white privilege is a useful way of examining the impact of racism in societies. It aims to explain how sometimes it can be hard to notice racism, if you don’t experience it.”

Meanwhile, the original article – deemed controversial by campaigners – seeks to explain the idea for young readers, stating: “If you look it up in a dictionary, white privilege is described as ‘people with white skin having advantages in society that other people do not have’.”

Newsround, however, appears to have addressed the complaint received by stating in the new article that some argue the idea of white privilege “can cause division”.

It cites the 2021 report published by the government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities that rejected white privilege as an idea, but adds that its findings “caused a lot of arguments”.

The final few paragraphs of the new explainer discuss the views of the public on the concept of white privilege, and for this Newsround cited polls showing that there is “more agreement on the issue of racism overall than there is on the specific term”.

The BBC has been contacted by The Telegraph for comment.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Ian Rowe

Published: Sep 14, 2023

Imagine you are twelve years old and your public-school teacher asks you and your seventh-grade classmates to stand side by side in a line. The instructor lists a series of personal attributes and says that you must take an action based on your alignment with a particular attribute, to demonstrate either your privilege or your disenfranchisement:

“If you are white, take two steps forward. If you’re a person of color with dark skin, take two steps back. If you’re black, take two steps back.”

This exercise, part of what is called a Colorism Privilege Walk, actually occurred at public schools in Evanston, Ill., and at many other schools across the country. According to the lesson plan, the goal was for white students to “learn more about white privilege, internalized dominance, microaggressions and how to act as an ally for students of color.” In other words, the point was to reveal the real sources of a person’s privilege: the unearned benefit of being white over the intrinsic victimhood of being nonwhite.

Because of these student Privilege Walks, and since the district had also conducted professional-development sessions that divided teachers by race, an Evanston teacher and the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit accusing Evanston School District 65 of violating the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause and Title VI’s prohibition on discrimination at federally funded educational institutions.

In all likelihood, these racially divisive practices in Evanston will be found legally impermissible — especially given the Supreme Court’s decision deeming race-based affirmative action unconstitutional in college admissions. Yet across a country now transfixed by the pursuit of equity, there is an obsession with determining what factors drive economic inequality and whether a person is inherently privileged or inherently oppressed based on a single characteristic, most notably race.

Against this backdrop, enter economist Melissa Kearney, who has done America a great service by publishing The Two-Parent Privilege. Kearney unequivocally states: “Marriage is the most reliable institution for delivering a high level of resources and long-term stability to children. There is simply not currently a robust, widespread alternative to marriage in US society.” In terms of benefits to children, not all family configurations are the same. Throughout the book, Kearney posits the necessary caveat that no person should remain in an unhealthy or violent marriage, but she makes plain the case that a married, two-parent household is generally superior to alternative arrangements such as cohabitation and single parenthood.

Rather than resort to making a moral or religious argument for marriage, Kearney, an MIT-trained economist, is determined to “bring the social science evidence on family structure from the obscurity of academic journals into the public conversation.”

Kearney simply sticks to the facts and makes an overwhelming data-based case that marriage and stable two-parent families matter monumentally to the life prospects of children — far more than the usually invoked suspects of race and gender. According to Kearney, in 2019, “77% of white children and 88% of Asian children lived with married parents. The share among Hispanic children was 62%. Only 38% of black children live with married parents — a historically low share that reflects a downward trend over four decades.” With such huge differences in family structure by race, how can one not fairly conclude that family-structure disparity is the greatest driving force behind racial disparities in education, crime, and virtually every area of concern for kids growing into young adulthood?

Indeed, Kearney surgically lays out the new dividing line in America’s quest for upward mobility:

There has been a massive widening of the family gap, such that a two-parent family has become yet another advantage in life enjoyed disproportionately by the college-educated class. The decline in the two-parent family among parents without a four-year college degree is a demographic trend that should concern anyone who cares about the well-being of children and about widespread economic opportunity, inequality, and social mobility in America.

One can only hope that during this election season presidential contenders emphasize how crucial healthy marriages and two-parent households are as the foundation for achieving virtually every social or economic policy objective. They would be wise to follow several of the policy recommendations in Kearney’s book, including, most notably, improving the economic position of non-college-educated men so that they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers. But Kearney recognizes that policy alone will not solve the problem. She strongly argues for a cultural shift that fosters a norm of two-parent homes, in part by simply being open and “honest about the benefits that a two-parent family home confers” on children.

In reviewing Kearney’s prescription, my only wish is that she had spent more time in two areas: (1) advocating that marriage and family structure become a standard data category through which child outcomes are analyzed, especially in education; and (2) identifying strategies to engage the rising generation to think differently about their decisions when it comes to the timing of their own family formation.

In regard to the former, the National Assessment for Educational Progress (a.k.a. the Nation’s Report Card) reports reams of educational data disaggregated by race, gender, geography, and other usual-suspect categories. But family structure is not one of them, despite the paramount role that marriage plays in influencing achievement gaps.

Including family structure could create opportunities to implement different types of interventions that could improve life outcomes for the next generation. For example, at Vertex Partnership Academies, the virtues-based high school I launched in the Bronx in 2022, in a class called Pathways to Power we teach the data associated with the “success sequence.” This is research that shows that the vast majority of young adults who graduate from high school, get full-time jobs, and marry before having children reach the middle class by their early 30s. Young people deserve to know this information, especially when they live in environments where most neighboring families have not followed that sequence.

* * *

In May 2001, writing for National Journal, Jonathan Rauch noted that, “according to Census Bureau data, a two-parent black household is more likely to be poor than is a two-parent white household, but both are far less likely to be poor than is a mother-only household of either race. In other words, if you are a baby about to be born, your best odds are to choose married black parents over unmarried white ones.”

Rauch was highlighting then what Kearney so effectively illustrates now, that in economic terms a parent’s marital status has displaced race and class as a primary driver of child poverty and upward mobility.

And perhaps this message is finally getting through. For evidence, look no further than a four-minute video titled “If someone doesn’t understand privilege, show them this.” Across Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and several media platforms, it has been viewed more than a staggering 125 million times. It captures another Privilege Walk, but in this case the personal attributes being presented are markedly different from those posed in Evanston.

The first two directives are: “Take two steps forward if both of your parents are still married. Take two steps forward if you grew up with a father figure in the home.”

In Kearney’s final chapter, she warns that “if millions of American children miss out on the benefits that come from a two-parent home and if the family gap continues to widen” then “children will suffer, inequality will continue to widen, and social mobility will erode.” It does not have to be this way. If we are brutally honest in accepting Kearney’s analysis of what truly privileges children, we know what the next steps forward should be.

[ Via: https://archive.md/F4YE8 ]

--

[ Source: Wikipedia ]

[ Source: Mother Jones ]

==

Stop blaming things on "systemic" -isms. There are often known or contributing factors at play, and refusing to acknowledge or address them is dishonest, not virtuous. It identifies nothing, solves nothing, and only serves to make people feel powerless, who are not actually powerless. Although, perhaps that's the point.

Where two-parent households are not possible, it should always default to joint/shared custody, rather than sole custody, with sole only as a last resort when unavoidable.

Joint custody should be the rule, not the exception

Children Likely to Be Better Adjusted in Joint vs Sole Custody Arrangements in Most Cases, According to Review of Research

The Consequences of Fatherlessness

[sudensk-the-stallionist]

a thing i don't usually see being discussed around is the matter of latin american identity. like, ML tumblr seems to be very supportive of global south matters but the point of how global south identities are extremely messed by the structure of imperialism influencing and forcing its cultural and social norms on the global south, and, more specifically to me, latin american, isn't as talked about as it could've been. so, like. the first thing i should say. the definition of "western". now, when i refer to western people or western governments i tend to refer to the US, western europe, canada, probably australia and nz. and it probably ends at that. and i think most MLs also at least partially agree. but on a day-to-day matter - how do latinos feel about the concept of being or NOT being western? like, is being latino an identity by itself? is it just an geographical one? because, you know, latin america is extremely diverse. i'm simply saying latin america because it's easier to encompass it all, but the countries and regions are so diverse that it is a bit of a sin to do so. but, then, what is it? like, are white latin americans less latin americans than mestizo and indigenous latin americans, and more western? what about the class division? i'd say that a white, "well-dressed", bourgeois man certainly FEELS more "western" than he feels latin american. yet, the term itself is innocuous on its on - it's just the romance language speaking countries of the american continent, right? so why is this definition seemingly "degrading" - considering how the privileged man is often considered less latino than the poor mestizo? this term, which is so important to political and cultural and social and yadda yadda yadda matters, at the same time is just so seemingly confusing! is it really just a geographical/linguistic matter? i'm sure about everything. but i'm sure of something. latin america has many points in common, despite the differences and diversity i mentioned. exploitation in brazil, in ecuador, in haiti, in guatemala - it's all under the boot of USamerican imperialism, and their varied culture, their identity, it all has been ignored. the many varieties and cultures - from the multiple ethnicities in latin america - they have been ignored, mashed together to form this cultural conglomerate to appease USamerican comprehension. so, instead of latin america being a region bound by linguistic and geographical matters, it is bound by common oppression. latin america is unified in its oppression by (mostly) iberian colonial powers, by indigenous suffering and then african slave suffering, by then rogue states fueled by USamerican imperialism, by coups and military-bourgeois regimes. it is bound by common electoral manipulation. the white, bourgeois man i mentioned before is considered more "western" than latin american because he is a tool, symbol and defender of imperial core bourgeois plans - and, therefore, "one of the better ones". latin america sure has linguistic and cultural proximities - which are amazing, and are often ignored both in the things they are close and the things they diverge. and it's important, i'm not saying it isn't. but, today, the common oppression of latin america across centuries not only makes it NEED to be unified against western imperial core oppression, but makes it have more things in common. it is, truly, the child of oppression.

[cutebutalsostabby]

Voice Referendum P2

Some very weird anon just sent me a very weird anonymous essay about my post on the Voice referendum (link). I'm not going to give the essay itself any airtime, but I am happy to share some extra info for education purposes.

Terminology

The term "settler" refers to anyone non-Indigenous, regardless of ethnic background. Sometimes it is useful to be more specific, e.g. white, Asian, African and so on, but the Voice was a proposal created for the sake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (aka Indigenous, First Nations or Blak), therefore settler is a useful term to describe the non-Indigenous population - who were, unfortunately, invited to have an opinion on this matter.

The above is not to say that whiteness is totally irrelevant here: while I couldn't find any data on how different racial demographics voted, the survey conducted by Octopus Group and Accent Research (link) shows a telling correlation between those that voted No in the referendum and those that believed (falsely) that white people face more discrimination than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I also note ABC's analysis (link) that those living in inner city locations were more likely to vote yes than those in rural areas. There are a few ways you could interpret that; one of them is that inner city areas tend to be more multicultural.

Do White People Experience More Discrimination than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People?

No.

Given the above graph, it's not hard to interpret how the anon that messaged me about "shitting on white people" voted, but it's really not hard to fact check this claim: even beyond the catastrophic breaches of human rights during the original invasion of so-called Australia - from murder to disease to destruction of land and property to forced evacuation to the death of several Indigenous languages - the effects of genocide continue today. Indigenous people are about 15 times more likely to be in prison and have a roughly 10-year lower life-expectancy than non-Indigenous people (source). Even before the Voice "debate" arrived, The Guardian reported that discrimination against Indigenous Australians had risen rapidly in 2021 (link). It only really takes a few minutes of independent research for any claims that the Voice would provide "special privilege" to fall apart.

I'm Queer and Have Racial Opinions, Hear Me Roar

Queer settlers are still settlers. Queer white people are still white. Specifically in regards to this part of the message I received:

im a queer woman in a relationship that is not heteronormative and i agree with almost everything the left wing says. i just think

I don't think this lovely lady did think so I'mma cut her off right there. Thanks for your very exciting opinion :) please dispose of it responsibly.

...So Now What?

Well, the vote has already happened, and unfortunately it was a No. Honestly, I'm a bit confused about receiving this ask now? Ah well.

As I said in my last post, I don't think settlers should have been voting on this in the first place, but since we were, I believe it was our duty to vote Yes. All past opinion polls showed that as the majority Indigenous opinion. I do respect that some Indigenous people voted No themselves, whether due to Jacinta Price's perspective on the "Voice of Division" or Lidia Thorpe's as representative for the Blak Sovereign Movement. Indigenous people are not a monolith, nor should they be expected to behave that way. In the case of settlers voting No however: I don't believe there is a good excuse for this. I think it was a racist result. I'm not overly surprised, but I am disappointed. Even so, the Voice was never going to be the end of it.

A few years ago, I made a commitment that at least 1% of my income would go towards paying the rent to Indigenous people (further info here). I've kept this commitment and would encourage others with an income to do the same. I've also written to my local MP to remind him of the unactioned recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody as well as the Bringing them Home Report.

I'd really encourage all settlers, in Australia or elsewhere, to find some way to get involved. Let's make use of our privilege and make the world a better and more equal place for all.

Thanks for reading.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Critique of the Response

Whatever can be said against participants in the convergence, throughout the entire incident no one threw a punch or called the police. It would be very difficult to find another mixed space of hundreds of people who would react to such a provocation without resorting to violence, whether their own or via the authorities.

But was the organizers’ reaction appropriate? Under the circumstances, considering that there was no template for handling such situations, it may not have been the worst response; if nothing else, it prevented anything from complicating the discussions that have taken place since. But upon a great deal of reflection, we can’t endorse the way people handled the disruption as an appropriate model for responding to similar events in the future.

By choosing to stay out of the conflict, white organizers essentially accepted the terms of the disrupters, collaborating in forcing them on everyone else and forcing the people of color who opposed the disruption to do so alone.

This is an example of how a muddle-headed desire to be an ally can sometimes cause people to countenance abusive behavior. White privilege is not the only kind of privilege, white-inflicted oppression is not the only kind of oppression; in standing aside, white organizers essentially joined the disrupters in prioritizing one form of oppression over others. This is neither responsible nor anarchist.

If this response sets the precedent for such situations, it will be impossible to defend anarchist events against disrupters of all stripes. Unfortunately, there are incentives for people of all walks of life to dominate and abuse others, and it’s not out of the question that worse enemies than these particular disrupters might attempt to take advantage of what they see as a weakness among anarchists. If there is a next time, we urge people to draw on this example and take action to prevent people from coercing others and breaking up events.

This is not the first time that anarchists have clashed over issues of oppression, entitlement, and coercion. History has shown repeatedly that apparently minor disagreements often foreshadow major divisions—in 1917, for example. We must stick to our principles even when others call on us to suspend them; let us not forget what became of anarchists who suspended them in the past.

There is also much to critique about the response after Friday night. It’s interesting to note that both the disruption Friday night and the discussion Saturday night targeted the attendees as a whole, diffusing responsibility, when most of the grievances in question could be traced to specific individuals. Anyone could have taken the initiative to approach the responsible parties personally, but few did. The discussion Saturday night was good for helping participants hone their understanding of oppression and white supremacy, but many of those who most needed to hear it were not in the room. At worst, this makes such discussions appear to be a sort of litany people recite to assure themselves of their good intentions, rather than a concrete way to change. Granted, people were exhausted—but most of the important growth in consciousness around these issues results from personal conversations, not open discussions.

A few people have dared to be honest and vulnerable, such as the white people in the discussion Saturday night who owned up to the oppressive things they had said Friday, and the people who participated in or were forewarned of the disruption who have come forward to express their regrets and explain why they did what they did. This humility sets a good example for everyone else.

Though many people have rejected the disrupters’ demands that white people “Go back to Europe” and so on as absurd, perhaps it is insulting not to engage with them. This is a coherent position—even if white people can’t be forced to return to Europe, one could argue that the only way for people of color to maintain their dignity is to refuse to legitimize their presence in North America.4 Indeed, white radicals consistently give people of color reason to doubt that they can ever be good comrades. White anarchists who don’t want to see more debacles like this in the future should make a real effort not to give people of color reason to give up on them.

Ultimately, though it is tempting for most white people to focus on the disruption, the roots of the issue and the power to address them lie within white anarchists. The disruption was not only a publicity stunt or a power grab within APOC; the fact that even a single person chose to participate in it out of personal frustration indicates that we all have a tremendous amount of work to do.

[selvem1karthik]

Slavery and discrimination was very prevalent in Europe, middle East, Japan of medieval times, only after Industrial revolution Europe needed educated skilled labour for big factories

"although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others.

White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century – and then it was an issue only in Western civilization."

Only after INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in Europe people in there started UNIVERSAL EDUCATION so that they get EDUCATED / SKILLED LABOUR . Before that most societies in the world kept the poor uneducated and socially backward

Slavery exploitation is an evil which has been prevalent from ancient times in most of the societies

👇🏻

Jews have literature / documents to show how they were enslaved by Egyptians and Babylonians

Slavery, Exploitation very prevalent evil of most societies in ancient times👇🏻

Clearly caste system followed in India was an In-human behaviour of exploitation and suppression of people for using them as Labour.   

Now  It is the duty of more rich and PRIVILEGED to help poor and socially vulnerable people and ensure mutual respect and equality in society. 

The ancient concept of all “VARNA” was misused to create unjust division of labour, the fact that varna only means human behaviour pattern - WITHOUT ANY LINK TO CASTE OR FAMILY OF BIRTH  was misinterpreted and the fact that  “ All varnas lead to me (Krishna)” was suppressed .  Four children of same parents can follow the behaviour pattern of four different varnas, appeared to be the ancient concept of varna. Which was misused as family based varnas during the period when slavery started to be followed in other parts of the world

👇🏻

https://m.thewire.in/article/caste/why-didnt-indias-muslim-rulers-and-thinkers-confront-the-inequities-of-the-caste-system

“The unfortunate impression throughout the world (has been) that while the Hindus were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus were a progressive people. That such an impression should prevail, is of course surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters.” Thus spake Ambedkar in “Pakistan or the Partition of India”

Dr.Ambedkar adds, “Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam. If slavery has gone, caste has remained.”

Dr.Ambedkar proceeds to quote from the Census report to show the division of Muslim society between two broad categories — Ashrāf and Ajlāf.

“Ashrāf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, ‘Ajlaf, “wretches” or “mean people”: they are also called Kamina. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’ is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground. Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.”

Ziauddin Barani, the preeminent historian of the Sultanate period, approvingly cites several instances of racial discrimination against Indian Muslims in his book Tarikh-e Firoz Shahi. He relates how, Nizam ul Mulk Junaidi, one of the high courtiers of Sultan Iltutmish, was dismissed from service when it was discovered that his grandfather had been a Julaha, that is, of the weaver caste. The same book attributes these words to Sultan Balban, “I know that God has blessed me with one characteristic, and that is that I simply cannot tolerate a low-born razil occupying any respectable position, and whenever I see such people my blood begins to boil. I cannot employ the son of a low-born or incapable person in the administration of my kingdom, which has been given to me by God. I cannot grant him any service or land grant.”

In his book on statecraft, Fatawa-e Jahandari, Barani provided a better religious rationale for social hierarchy than Manu Smriti ever could. He says, “When the All-Powerful God produces some good or bad in a human being, He gives him the capacity needed to express that particular good or bad quality. This capacity is hereditary, and because goodness is given to those who adopt good professions, they have been called as of high status, free-born, pious, religious, and of superior lineage. Only such people and groups deserve posts and positions in the government of the Muslims. One should not be deceived by the low-born, for their merits are false, not genuine.”

How Portuguese and other European conquerers made thousands of Indians, Africans, Brazilians as slaves👇🏻

[atozphantomsquadron]

Epilogue

            I was in tears by the time I finished the last of the journals. In my time in hiding, I’d tried to avoid any news coming from the New Empire, so seeing from one of my best friends in the supernatural community that it was going away was a great and welcome surprise. That and the two marriages in the end, these were making me emotional. Maybe my wife and daughter would be released soon!

            I removed the special reading glasses, and time resumed its normal passage. The books returned to a scribble of runic gibberish, unintelligible to any except the people they were intended to be read by. I took a deep breath, and it felt extremely good. I guess I had been holding my breath since I had read Alanna’s battle with Mamuna, and simply forgotten about it, caught up in the story as I was.

            I returned the last journal to the box, accidentally knocking over the newspaper, the one I’d propped up which announced a prisoner amnesty. When I did, I spotted the last of the contents of the package, a small, folded-over note. I reached into the box and withdrew the card. Thankfully, I didn’t have to put the glasses back on to read it, but what surprised me about it was that it only had one line, written in a feminine hand.

Look outside your window! -AWB

            I puzzled over this message for a while, particularly who did I know that had the initials AWB? My eyes widened when the realization hit me: AWB was Alanna. Alanna White Bear. I threw the note aside and ran to my window, opening it with shaking hands and sticking my head outside.

            On the sidewalk, three stories down, stood a very happy party, smiling up at me. A tall blond woman, cuddling arm-in-arm with her escort, an even taller heavily muscled man, stood behind the two people I had been waiting to see for years.

            My wife and daughter.

            I bolted out of my apartment, down the stairs, and out the door, clutching my family tightly to me once again. This close to the party, I finally realized that the blond woman was Alanna, which would make her escort the man she had married, William White Bear. These thoughts were buried by my happiness at being reunited with my family.

            That was four years ago.

            As I write these words this evening, I’m awaiting my cue to take the stage at a victory rally in Wyoming, at the Hidden-In-Plain-Sight Ranch. I can hear the crowd outside, clamoring for the guest of honor, who I’m supposed to introduce.

            Change came quickly once the New Empire regime was taken down. Presidential elections were just re-established this year, after allowing the former House Speaker to serve out a full term. Over the course of two years, a constitutional amendment overturning the Regents’ power grab was unanimously ratified by the remaining states, and olive branches were extended to the independent republics of Alaska and Texas to coax them to rejoin the Union. A concerted effort was made by the re-established in their power Congress to effect changes across the board to all social and military programs. The SSA was disbanded, returned to its original military and law enforcement purposes. An additional division was made out of the former blueshirts, which was tasked with beginning cleanup and recovery duties in the Missouri Rad Zone, with the goal of making the state habitable for human/supernatural residents once more.

            Which leads us to tonight. This year has been the most good-natured Presidential election cycle in recent memory, since it’s been so long since there’s actually been an election. It culminates in this celebration tonight.

            A knock comes on my door. When I answer it, standing there is Alanna White Bear, holding her one-year-old son Julian. “It’s time.”

            I smile back at my friend, whose journals I had the privilege of transcribing. “How’s married life treating you?”

            “Pretty well. I’m about to finish college this year, so is William, and everyone at the Ranch has been so helpful with the baby.”

            “I can imagine, he’s quite the cutie.” I pinch the tot’s cheek. He grins and giggles, shrinking back toward his mommy, but still showing signs of his supernatural nature, a pair of vestigial wings that I’ve been told on several occasions, by both Alanna and William, will never work. “I remember you when you were not much older than Julian here, you did many of the same things as I recall.”

            She nods, wistfully. “Those were the days, huh?”

            “They were.” I clear my throat, collecting my notes. “Okay, I’m ready.”

            Alanna leads me out the door, to a stage set up just outside the foyer of the Ranch house. It’s coated entirely in crepe paper and patriotic bunting. I spot my wife and daughter, sitting to one side, and they wave to me. I wave back, then make my way on the stage, adjusting the microphone slightly so that it comes to my mouth.

            “Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming here tonight. We’re here for a most auspicious occasion. Let me tell you, I’ve known the people you’ve come to see for a while, through their actions and their friends. I can think of no one else better suited for this honor which is about to be bestowed. So without further ado, please allow me to introduce to you a combat veteran, a dedicated parent, an honorable individual who showed the nation what their true colors were. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the President-Elect of the United States, Kitty Salem!”

            I turn and applaud, and from behind me approaches the entire extended Salem family. Kitty is the first to walk out, waving enthusiastically to the crowd, limping slightly from the injury she incurred at the final battle. Cyrus accompanies her, not bothering with a HoSIP to make himself look taller; he’s apparently embraced his shortness finally, after so long. Behind them enter royalty, King Fahaian and the tiger-like Queen Michika, looking just as overjoyed as Michika’s parents, leading their toddler daughter Princess Akiko for a while before the queen finally picks her up.

            Kitty comes over to the podium and embraces me. “Layin’ it on a little thick, aren’t you?” she whispers.

            “You deserve the praise,” I respond. “Now get out there and talk to your people!”

            I release the embrace and cross the stage, back to where my own family sits in waiting. My wife turns and whispers to me. “Did you ever think that one interview so long ago would lead to this?”

            I smile back at her, as confetti starts to fall. “It was a really wild ride.”

            She takes my right hand, as my daughter takes my left, and we watch Kitty give her victory speech. Hope rises in my soul, hope for humanity and for the world. If a nation that so shunned supernaturals just barely four years ago can embrace one as their President, there’s truly hope for us as beings of mercy and love. Alanna’s story shows what power love and loyalty hold, even in today’s modern society.

[bilbobagginsomebabez]

I think one thing that impacts this is general lack of understanding of whiteness itself or recognition that whiteness is itself conditional. whiteness constructs a mythology of supremacy that must be upheld, and if you fail to uphold it, your position as "white" can and will be removed. it can also be given, which is why whiteness can be assimilated into, as with the Irish, German, and Italian immigrant populations in the 19th & early 20th century US. this reality is directly contradictory to the white supremacist myth that white supremacy is racial, genetic, traceable, and immutable.

conditional whiteness is most obvious in the case of "white trash" (which incidentally makes it a very valuable group in determining the borders of whiteness). group labeling processes generally have two narratives in negotiation with each other. the ingroup perceptions and determinations put forward (esoteric) and the outgroup perceptions and determinations (exoteric). what the group says about themselves vs what is said about them. as the dominant sociocultural group, whiteness says a LOT about other groups and tolerates very little said about itself. in order to define and understand whiteness, you must look at its borders. where white becomes not white and why. the term white trash is particularly clear in its esoteric and exoteric roots. "white" is provided by the ingroup as a constant reminder of the privileges and treatment they "should" have under white supremacy while "trash" is provided by the larger white outgroup--"not one of us." [academic passages under the cut via (1) Not Quite White: White Trash and the Boundaries of Whiteness by Matt Wray (2) Cultural Studies Misfit: White Trash Studies by Dina Smith (3) Unpopular Culture: The Case of White Trash by John Hartigan]

Jewish people and Ashkenazim in particular are white when they are serving the interests of white supremacy and they are Not White when they refuse or when their needs oppose the mythology and requirements of whiteness. for example, anti-zionist jews are being cut out of their communities and certainly aren't considered white right now due to their opposition to the current requirements of whiteness. Amy Schumer, rich zionist making a genocide about herself and how scared she would be 'as a Jewish person' if Israel isn't allowed to continue the genocide, is absolutely white as fuckin snow right now. she is enthusiastically performing the requirements of whiteness by fearmongering against a racialized other which cements her position within the dominant racial category. whiteness draws borders around the outside, always making sure that they land on the powerful side of the division.

so like white trash, Jewish people in the US with pale skin are conditionally white as long as they toe the line and reinforce mythologies of white supremacy. the material benefits and privileges of whiteness create a strong incentive to assimilate and perform these expectations. that privilege is key. They are presumed to be white until proven otherwise, which continuously creates and destroys a precarious state of white privilege and often engenders a rabid loyalty to whiteness in an attempt to stabilize that privilege and retain it as a continuous social resource. which is why white trash people are often some of the most racist motherfuckers you'll ever meet in your life, why the Irish burned down Black neighborhoods during the draft riots, and why zionism with its ties to colonial hegemony manufacture whiteness. the subjugation of a racialized other creates white supremacy and the privilege that goes along with it.

Matt Wray, Not Quite White: White trash and the boundaries of whiteness

Dina Smith, Cultural Studies' Misfit: White Trash Studies

John Hartigan, Unpopular Culture: The Case of White Trash

re holocaust exceptionalism: as someone who's genuinely annoyed by how ashkenazim do not realize that they're "white" in the us, i really don't think ethnic ashkenazim being white by today's standards has anything to do with conclusions that the holocaust was "unique" or that it's worth recognizing, let alone why its memory is used to justify -sraeli atrocities. the us (for example) is perfectly capable of recognizing the danger uyghurs (largely not white) are being put through - the fault of china, the "enemy superpower" - while not recognizing the danger palestinians (largely not white) are being put through - the fault of their vassal state in the middle east and their own blind support for it.

at the end of the day, countries like the us view the holocaust the way they do because it's both "safe" and politically advantageous for them to view it that way. compare that to, like, iran, who doesn't have good relations with the us and its friends, hence that holocaust denial conference ahmadinejad hosted in 2006 where he invited david duke to speak. (yes, really, look it up.) also compare it to how the us has yet to recognize the many genocides it's committed against native americans, let alone making any significant effort at reparations past whatever haphazard thing they drafted up in the 19th century. the "unique" thing could be a way to deny other genocides the us and its allies were involved in as much as it could be a genuine belief that the genocides the us was complicit in were justified, but it doesn't matter.

as for why individuals think that way, i'd say it's more on a case-by-case basis. some understand how political atrocity recognition and having an ethnostate of your own are and are afraid that losing "power" will somehow make the world revert to rampant antisemitism. some think the us is acting out of the kindness of its heart and are just mindlessly swallowing hasbara narratives that people wanting a free palestine also want to kill every jew. either way, you get the sense that jewish people who are z-onists who think this way are placing themselves in some sort of "competition" against palestinians and other oppressed people, like there's only so much love to go around. looking at the world in this way is selfish, even if it comes out of fear, but you don't need me to tell you that.

[zodiacbrave]

maybe it was just the people i was following on twitter but i've noticed this kind of poisoned outlook when it comes to the definition of transmisogyny as it stands today. the exclusion of trans men and transmasculine people was never the intention of the author but some people are using it to sort of punch sideways at these groups. as it stands, i'm a strong believer in transunity ( i'm black, non-binary and transandrogynous / an androgyne for context ) and i think time would be better spent organizing in person and online as equals under our struggles instead of taking up an online presence of constantly shitting on transmasc and non-binary people who are not transfemme. i am not a trans woman or transfemme so i can only speak from the perspective of race and use myself as an example. there was a time when i was learning about anti-racism and white supremacy and was very much ‘ online ‘ and one of the ways i would vent to feel better was making fun of white people to the point where it seemed like despite their privilege, i wasn’t seeing them as human beings. sure, shitty white people exist, i know first hand as someone who experiences anti-black racism but online, it seemed like the only way you would be credible is if you spent your time dog-piling white people and using anything about them: music, clothes, ‘ culture ‘, and just shitting on them endlessly. it was cathartic for awhile but i got sick of it. i have white friends ( lol i know how this sounds ) but after awhile i realized that white people were not allowed to speak about their experiences in any way without getting called names or dogpiled and realized that the way forward was to do something different. i feel like it’s the same for trans women and allies who do this on twitter, in their safe spaces, and other places online. my argument here isn’t that trans women and transfemme people should never be allowed to vent their frustrations in this way. it can be cathartic and you feel like you have some control in this terribly harsh world that is harshest to this group esp. what i’m saying is that just because it feels good to do, doesn’t mean that you should continue. it’s something that i outgrew and i’d like to think that the dunking on afab people is something that transfemme people will also outgrow as time goes on. i'm not trying to tone police or invalidate the trans women and the allies that do this dunking. but to me, it creates this needless separation and divisiveness when what we need is cohesion as well as allyship with transfemme amab people esp. i've also been browsing some interesting tags on here with people talking about ' transandrophobia '. this is a new term for me and i'm still researching it but, i can't help but wonder if there's actually some merit to what people may be saying under this tag, esp @/transmascissues. i think it's important to realize that just because you may not agree with a trans woman for what they're saying about transmisogyny ( or anything else for that matter ) does NOT automatically make you a transmisogynist or TERF and that there really needs to be something done about the toxic dynamics i've experienced first hand in woman first spaces. things like ' testosterone is poison ', making fun of transmac people for their looks or presentation, grouping all afab people under the umbrella of transmac if they're non-binary, and also the weaponization of tma / tme discourse really makes me feel like we need better language to talk about trans people and our lived experiences in general. online, i feel like what happens is that certain terms and theories that make sense to us are used in discourse and then are treated as if they can never be questioned. discourse should be fluid and people should be able to edit terms as they want, HOWEVER if that editing leads to the actual erasure of oppression from certain groups ( i'll just use transmac people as an example here ) then maybe it's time to reassess and self reflect about why you think punching sideways is something you need to do in order to cope. the way i've seen people talk about afab and transmasc people online over the years has been very jarring. i feel like these groups are NOT afforded the same kind of love and respect as transfemme people in some circles. if you have the belief that just because someone is severely marginalized that they can't cause harm to others, then you have some serious unpacking to do no matter HOW you identify. i also want to note, for clarity that after i was accused of being a ' transmisogynist ' i did my own research into the issue and found a lot of helpful resources both on tumblr and elsewhere. i have a better understanding of what it is, who it affects, and what i can do as an ally to help combat it. the point of this post is not to downplay violence that transfeminine people face ( esp trans people of color ; see - transmisogynoir ) but to say that no one has to right to claim that the abuse and transphobia, AS WELL AS TRANSMISOGYNY is less important or less impactful just because it's happening to an afab or transmasc person.

[loudlytransparenttrash]

Have you noticed over the years that the SJW stuff is seeping into STEM?

Wow, that sounds like a right-wing conspiracy theory to me that must be dismissed and never spoken of again. As long as you ignore all the following examples of social justice seeping into STEM, there is no evidence of social justice seeping into STEM. 

In a 82-page training manual titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction”, the Oregon Department of Education plans to root out “white supremacy” in mathematics, by not asking students to show their work or placing any emphasis on getting the right answer, which will stop white supremacy from “popping up in the classroom.” The racist implication is that non-white students are incapable of “showing their work” or “getting the right answers,” and so teachers must scrap the academic bar altogether. To fight such white supremacy, math teachers are urged to accept TikTok videos from students instead of math work. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund the training.

Seattle public schools created a framework to protect children from racist and “oppressive mathematical practices.” Included in this report, educators and students will learn, “How important is it to be Right? What is Right? Says Who?“, “Who holds power in a mathematical classroom?“, “Can you recognize and name oppressive mathematical practices in your experience?” “Who is doing the oppression?” “Who does the oppression protect?”, “Explain how math and technology and/or science are connected and how technology and/or science have been and continues to be used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.” The Seattle school district also put into place a K-12 curriculum that encourages students “to explore how math has been ‘appropriated’ by Western culture and used in systems of power and oppression.”

The Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Wake Forest University now offers a “racist and anti-racist uses of math and statistics” class because “The time has come for us to focus on fighting racism and making plans to create a more equitable educational space.” In addition to the new anti-racism math class, the math department at Wake Forest has placed a declaration at the top of its webpage that affirms Black Lives Matter, pledges to try and hire more faculty of color and launch microaggression trainings, and organize a math/stats colloquium on social justice.

The University of California now require ‘diversity contributions’ and statements from future math professors. Applicants are asked to write a statement in which they explain how they will advance the university’s diversity plans. “The Division of Physical Sciences has a strong interest in ensuring that all candidates hired have the professional skills, experience, and/or willingness to engage in activities that will advance our campus equity, diversity and inclusion goals.” The purpose of the diversity statement as a method of evaluating a candidate’s “awareness of the barriers that exist for groups historically under-represented”, “past efforts in diversity and outreach activities” and “future plans to enhance equity, diversity, and inclusion in higher education.” One math professor at the University of California, Davis, wrote in opposition to the required “diversity statements,” referring to them as “using a political test as a screen for job applicants.”

The Mathematical Association of America released a statement in which it argued that mathematics contains “human biases” that can only be corrected by promoting critical race theory to math educators and students.

A math education professor at the University of Illinois argues that the teaching of math subjects such as Pythagorean Theorem perpetuates white privilege because they were developed by Europeans. “Mathematics itself operates as whiteness and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as white.” He also argued there’s no such thing as objective truths.

A Math Education professor from Brooklyn College argued that the "trope” of “2+2=4 reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.” It was also promoted by several academics at colleges around the nation, with another suggesting math should be reevaluated because it was primarily developed by white men. He also complains that “meritocracy” in math classes is a “tool of whiteness.” Teachers who claim color-blindness - that is, they claim to not notice the race of their students—are, in effect, oppressing them. “By claiming not to notice, the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child’s identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction.” He recommends that math teachers incorporate more social justice issues into math lessons, but warns that even “teaching for social justice” can be a “tool of whiteness” if teachers are not sufficiently sympathetic to minority students.  

A University of Rhode Island professor claimed that science, statistics and technology are inherently racist “because they are developed by racists living in a racist society, whether they identify as racists or not.” The professor also recently came under scrutiny after condoning an Antifa member killing a Trump supporter last year. After a commenter called him out for his position on his post, he replied “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.”

Duke University has a new computer science course that will focus on race, gender, and class within the world of computing, in order to change the “working environment” of the field. “This course explores the diversity, equity, and inclusion challenges in computing through an introduction to and analysis of various social constructs and their impact on not only computing departments and organizations but also the technologies developed. This course also introduces students to cultural competence in the context of computing.” “We have to change the mindset of a workforce that is overwhelmingly white, Asian and male.”

A group of mathematics professors argued in their published book that math teachers must “live out social justice commitments” to fight privilege in the classroom. Math teachers, “must learn how to advocate for students, self-examine for biases, and strategically subvert the system in which they teach to counteract student oppression,” adding that the development of “political knowledge” is key. “Any amount of connection to issues of equity, diversity, social justice, and power is better than none at all.”

Activists persuaded top science journals to stop work for a day and to validate their claims of “white supremacy” throughout the American science sector. The small group of black academics and scientists demanded that science be “reorganized” for black Americans as they pushed the hashtag #ShutDownSTEM. One of their manifestos demanded that the goal of “justice for black Americans” be prioritized above scientific discovery and objective reality. Another manifesto portrayed all scientists who put science first are racists: “Unless you engage directly with eliminating racism, you are perpetuating it.” In response, two of the leading science publications, Science Magazine and Nature, agreed to not talk about science for a day and instead use their Twitter accounts to post the demands and claims by the radicals.

A physicist at the University of Zaragoza is using cross-dressing drag to “empower” minorities in science and technology fields. In an article on the website, Lady Science, he says drag is still uncommon in scientific fields, because “sexism, racism, ableism and LGBTphobia remain very much alive in academia.”

A recent paper published by a team of various college professors makes the case that STEM courses should be made easier for female students. The researchers argue that “gender” inequities in the STEM majored could be lessened by artificially inflating grades. The study claims that the STEM fields would see an 11.3 percent increase in female students if STEM classes practically erased grading.

A Vanderbilt University professor complained in an academic journal article that the field of mathematics is a “white and heteronormatively masculinized space.” In the article titled Unpacking the Male Superiority Myth and Masculinization of Mathematics at the Intersection, he argues that the apparent “gender gap” in mathematical success is socially constructed. He concludes by expressing a hope that future analyses of gender in mathematics take a more “intersectional” approach, after noticing “intersectional considerations of mathematics achievement and participation shaped by whiteness and sexuality” were left out of many of the studies he reviewed. Intersectionality theory from black feminist thought, he adds, can allow for “more nuanced analyses of gender” and its relation to mathematical performance.

Auburn Drive High School in Canada offers a class in “Africentric” mathematics. It incorporates “discussions about the students’ cultural backgrounds, history and their lived experiences,” all the while teaching them math and associated concepts “through an Africentric lens.”

A scientific journal retracted a professor’s article which criticized hiring based on skin color and sex, leading to apologies from both the journal and the professor’s university. The professor had wrote, “The rise and emphasis on hiring practices that suggest or even mandate equality in terms of absolute numbers of people in specific subgroups is counter-productive if it results in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates.” The journal withdrew the article “amid a backlash” and reassured the professor’s “views do not reflect our values of fairness, trustworthiness and social awareness,” and added they “stand against discrimination, injustices and inequity.”

Two national mathematics organizations are on a mission to prove that math education is “unjust and grounded in a legacy of institutional discrimination.” The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for All, aim to “ratify social justice as a key priority in the access to, engagement with, and advancement in mathematics education for our country’s youth,” the groups declared in a joint statement, elaborating that “a social justice stance interrogates and challenges the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in the current unjust system of mathematics education and in society as a whole.”

Students at the Claremont McKenna Colleges staged a protest to make it known that objective truth is a ‘white supremacist’ myth devised by “white supremacists” to “attempt to silence oppressed peoples.”

Boston Public Schools have suspended their advanced academic program due to racial ‘equity’ concerns. Acceptance to the program was decided on standardized grade test scores and the successful students would be required “to study in greater depth, with more schoolwork and more home study than the traditional curriculum.” Because 70 percent of students in the program were white and Asian, the program was scrapped. A committee member said she was “very disturbed” by the racial statistics and noted they are “just not acceptable.” The superintendent said “There’s a lot of work we have to do in the district to be antiracist.” Advanced programs for gifted students often are targets either for complete abolition or restructuring due to “incorrect” racial and ethnic demographics.

A recent Washington Post article lamented the fact that biology textbooks contain a disproportionate number of “white men.” “They’re all men. They’re all white, and are written from a very white perspective.”

Cell, a prominent science journal, published a statement accusing their entire discipline of racism. “Science has a racism problem,” they assert, apparently concluding that underrepresentation of a given ethnic group must equate to a deliberate wrongdoing against that group. “Cell stands with our Black readers, reviewers, authors, and colleagues. We are committed to listening to and amplifying their voices, to educating ourselves, and to finding ways that we can help and do better. We alone cannot fix racism.” They go on to list all of the affirmative action changes they can make.

Fordham University’s Political Science department announced it had voted to adopt a new policy that mandates professors must use a student’s “preferred” name and pronouns. The decision was announced just two weeks after student activist groups demanded that the university publicly “resist transphobic rhetoric.” The activist students were inspired to make these demands after reading an article by the New York Times, which reported that the Trump administration had been considering defining sex as “male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.”

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics states on its website that “mathematics teachers should “reflect on their own identity, positions, and beliefs in regards to racist and sorting-based mechanisms” and “notice students, learn about the worlds they live in, and build mathematics that comes from these worlds.” They also hold webinars titled “Developing Social Justice Mathematics Activists in Pre-K-Grade 5,” its description states that “mathematics should become a social justice tool that empowers students to mathematically recognize and address oppression they see in their own world.”

Wayne State University, Detroit, dropped math as a graduation requirement and is replacing it with mandatory “Diversity courses.” UCLA also approved a “diversity graduation requirement,” which stipulates that every student in the College of Letters and Sciences take a course about “inequalities based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and religion, among other factors.”

Radical Math is “a resource for educators interested in integrating issues of social and economic justice into their math classes and curriculum.” Radical Math boasts over 700 lesson plans, articles, charts, books, and websites that cover a wide range of socio-political issues from redistribution of wealth to racial profiling.

A professor at the University of California-Davis has vowed to “challenge the authority of Science” by “rewriting knowledge” through a feminist lens. Science, she worries, has “earned its epistemic authority through its co-constitution with colonization and slavery,” and therefore “relies on a colonial and racialized form of power.” Not only is science rooted in racism, she alleges, it has been used to perpetuate racism and colonial practices. “At the root of the justification for social inequality then is Western science,” she says, claiming that science’s distinction between “humans and non-humans” has allowed “capitalism to be justified as a natural economic system.

The New York Times published an article highlighting several academics who say “Earth Science has a whiteness problem.” One of them, from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said white geoscientists should help increase a “sense of belonging” among non-white groups by “separating their privilege as a white person from their identity as a good person.” Another, who helped create a book club which fellow geoscientists talk about “race and white privilege,” added that earth science classes could be “enriched” by more Native American voices since “Indigenous people have a unique connection to the land.”

University of Wyoming added a diversity course in geosciences meant to address a lack of diversity within the field. The course was the result of a diversity survey conducted by the university in which 67 percent of faculty responded that diversity, equity, and inclusion classes should be required for all students. “The primary goal of the class is to raise awareness that lack of diversity, equity and inclusivity is a problem in our scientific community and in academia in general. The lectures aim to make students think about implicit bias that we often have and don’t recognize and students have the chance to learn from life experiences of scientists from underrepresented groups. The systemic racism that is present in our society also is present in academia. Black, Hispanic, women and LGBTQ scientists are disproportionally underrepresented in the student and faculty population, and students from underrepresented minorities are often the target of microaggressions on campus.”

The National Science Foundation is paying for a multi-million program at Drexel University to help teachers learn how to work social justice into their classrooms. “This project intends to promote social justice teaching, which emphasizes connecting science, mathematics, and engineering instruction to students’ personal experiences and culture. The long-term and far-reaching benefits to society of this project are the potential to document and share sustainable approaches, steeped in the context of social justice.”

The University of Louisville had an opening in its physics and astronomy department, but it ruled out white and Asian applicants. “University of Louisville is an affirmative action, equal opportunity, Americans with disabilities employer, committed to community engagement and diversity, and in that spirit, seeks applications from a broad variety of candidates. The Department of Physics and Astronomy announces a tenure-track assistant professor position that will be filled by an African-American, Hispanic American or a Native American Indian.”

UC Santa Cruz hosted an event called “Research Justice 101: Tools for Feminist Science” where “Participants will be challenged to apply principles and practices of justice to their own work, interrogating questions such as: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Who is most vulnerable? And ultimately, who do we do science for?” The workshop concludes with practical skills and resources for participants to push their research “to be more inclusive, equitable and attentive to social justice.”

A professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago wants others to teach “math for social justice” to help fight the “oppressive status quo” in the United States. He argues that teaching “critical mathematics” isn’t an option for math teachers, but rather a “responsibility to our future.” “We have a responsibility to our future and our planet, to life and all species. What we do in the classroom matters, for today and tomorrow, and the myriad possibilities for resistance and transformation.” “In my work, I argue that K-12 students need to be prepared through their mathematics education to investigate and critique injustice (such as racism and language discrimination) and to challenge, in words and actions, oppressive structures and acts.”

Central Connecticut State University is running a contest, asking students to "express their personal connection to the Black Lives Matter Movement” and reassures students that it’s lowering the racist grammatical standards for the contest. On the website, the school notes “submissions will not be judged on traditional literary or grammatical standards.”

A science education professor at the University of Arizona believes elementary schoolchildren are being taught “heteronormative” and “limited” ideas in science classrooms, and queer theory curricula is the answer. She explores in her lectures how “inviting sexuality into the elementary science classroom” and “queer theory can be useful tools for re-imagining elementary science education and elementary science teacher preparation.”

An academic journal article suggested appointing a “Safety Officer” and rewarding participation in “diversity programming” to combat “gender inequity” at scientific conferences. “Addressing gender inequity should be a primary consideration for all societies hosting conferences, yet many STEM conferences are struggling with gender biases and the understanding that gender inequity also applies to non-binary gender identities and intersectional diversity/overlapping social identities.” They call for the introduction of a gender-based Code of Conduct for all attendees to abide by, appointing a “safety officer” at each scientific conference to make it easier for people to report if they feel they have been subjected to harassment or discrimination, and paying the cost of travel for women who wish to attend the conference.

The director of libraries at MIT argued that tech workplaces need to ditch “Star Trek” posters and other geeky stuff to be more inclusive and welcoming to women. “Replace the Star Trek posters with travel posters, don’t name your projects or your printers or your domains after only male figures from Greek mythology, and just generally avoid geek references and inside nerd jokes. Those kinds of things reinforce the stereotypes about who does tech.” She is a self-described “butch and queer” cis woman and “the work of libraries and librarians is to support feminist research and agendas. She also complained that “A profession that is 88% white means 5000% agony for people of color, no matter how liberal and enlightened you think you are.” She also said we need to have “a f**king reckoning about the pain we cause, and that we need to do some hard work on decolonizing our organizations and our professions.”

PLUS ignore these hundred other examples.

[snekdood]

~hidden between the branches and leaves

lies a hundred stars beyond the trees~

about:

hi u can call me snake or animal, im a shapeshifting trickster elf, im a man, im 27, he/him, and im a vegan (but not annoying about it, and no, none of my vegan takes are about targeting native americans tyvm 😌 idgaf what they do.), anti fascist, solarpunk and eco friendly, and i really like to draw, cook, garden, sew, carve and make bead bracelets with gemstones and learn new things and grow and change everyday :^) oh also i like weed 🌿 ओम नमः शिवाय

im not perfect, but neither are you, so lets make it work.

stay wyrd ✌️

[18+] no childs please

art | comic → deviant art | insta | youtube | twitch | links | hate mail

to whom it may concern, here’s information you definitely don’t need to know about from my bio at all and probably haven’t even earned the right to know about but that ppl will demand out of me regardless surely: 

BASICALLY IM OFTEN SEEN AS “WHITE” BY PEOPLE AND SOMETIMES NOT AND IT USUALLY DEPENDS ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT ME MOMENT TO MOMENT, LEFTISTS BEING CHARITABLE ABOUT ME TRY TO SEE ME AS BEING MIXED, LEFTISTS BEING UNCHARITABLE ABOUT ME TRY TO SEE ME AS WHITE, RWINGERS BEING CHARITABLE TOWARDS ME TRY TO SEE ME AS WHITE, RWINGERS BEING UNCHARITABLE TO ME TRY TO SEE ME AS MIXED, MAKE OF THAT WHAT YOU WILL. I DO NOT CONTROL HOW PEOPLE TREAT ME. I DO NOT OWE YOU DISCLOSING WHAT ETHNICITIES I HAVE IN ME ESP SINCE I DONT EVEN REALLY KNOW ANYWAYS. WHITENESS IS A FAKE USELESS DIVISIVE CONCEPT CREATED BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS. YES I UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO HAVE CONVOS ABOUT IT SINCE THEY MADE UP THE TERM AND A LOT OF “WHITE” PPL ARE ATTACHED TO THEIR PRIVILEGE OF BEING SEEN AS WHITE. BUT ULTIMATELY IT IS A TERM I THINK WE NEED TO GET RID OF. “THE MASTERS TOOLS WILL NOT DISMANTLE THE MASTERS HOUSE”, ETC. I THINK DISCUSSIONS ABOUT COLORISM IS MORE USEFUL, BUT STILL ULTIMATELY DIVIDES PEOPLE INTO BOXES THAT PPL CANT EVEN AGREE ON SO IDK. I THINK CULTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT AND TELLS YOU MORE ABOUT SOMEONE THAN SKIN COLOR/TONES, AND ALL YA GOTTA KNOW IS IM A EMO MIDWESTERN MURICAN’ WHO’S BASICALLY HAD TO INVENT MY OWN CULTURE FOR MYSELF. I'VE NOT BEEN MISTAKEN FOR BEING BLACK, I DO NOT HAVE DARK SKIN, AND DONT CLAIM TO BE BLACK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SOME PPL ASSUME IM OF SWANA OR NATIVE AMERICAN DESCENT SOMETIMES, BUT IDK WTF IM MIXED WITH ENTIRELY. I DONT CLAIM TO BE MIXED OR ANYTHING EITHER BC I DONT FUCKIN KNOW, BUT IM ALSO NOT WILLING TO SHARE WHAT ALL I DO KNOW I’M MIXED WITH, BC YALL CANT BE TRUSTED TO NOT PUT THINGS IN PRISTINE, NO LINE-BLURRING, B/W BOXES THE WAY WHITE SUPREMACISTS WANT YOU TO DO. I’M NOT GONNA CLAIM THAT IM NOT WHITE, OBVIOUSLY SOME PPL PERCEIVE ME TO BE, BUT IM ALSO NOT GONNA SAY THAT I AM BC I DONT IDENTIFY WITH WHITENESS BC I DONT THINK WHITENESS IS REAL. AND SINCE I GET MISTAKEN FOR OTHER STUFF AND DONT KNOW EVERYTHING ABT MY ANCESTRY ANYWAYS, WHO FUCKIN KNOWS. WHY DOES IT MATTER. LOOK AT MY FUCKIN INSTAGRAM IS YA WANNA KNOW WTF I LOOK LIKE SO BADLY. AS MUCH AS YOU MIGHT BE BEGGING ME TO JUST “TELL YOU” I AM ALSO BEGGING GOD TO TELL ME SO I CAN TELL YALL TO SHUT UP BUT I WILL PROBABLY NEVER KNOW AND I THINK HOW PPL TREAT ME IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER IN MY SITUATION.

BE HONEST: THE ONLY REASON YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT MY “RACE” OR ETHNICITY IS IS SO YOU CAN KNOW IF YOU CAN YELL AT ME ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS. FUCK OFF AND DIE IDK, FIND A HOBBY MAYBE

I have expressive language disorder and severe anxiety. i also have seizures and i might talk abt it sometimes. other issues too that i dont feel like I need to mention that’s really relevant to tumblr, all you need to know is im mentally ill bc of severe trauma.

reasons i dont want you to follow me:

I used to have a paragraph in here about having “discussions with people i disagree with” but something about this website makes people incapable of not being bad faith assholes so idc to try anymore. maybe I will if I actually think you’re being good faith but that hardly ever fuckin happens on here, so, I’m not waiting around to find out anymore. it’s impossible to have productive conversations on here I’ve concluded.

anyways, aside from that:

terfs/tirfs/swerfs/radfems out, baeddels out, transmeds/truscum (still dont know the difference) out, pedophiles/pedo apologists/maps gtfo, white supremacists, ethnonationalists, racists, nazis, hindutva’s, fascists in general out, ancaps out, authoritarians out, class reductionists out, mls/tankies out, accelerationists out, anti theists suck and should gtfo too

[send your hate mail here, i prolly wont be reading it tho]

[tiger-moran]

Well, you can have your opinion on this and I agree I suppose that a lot of people have misunderstood the terms going by the way they fling them around because they seem to be the latest 'buzzwords' in 'queer discourse' circles, but I don't agree that they're neutral terms and that they're no different to 'person with penis' or whatever. I think they are useless and often even actually harmful, and I've never yet seen anyone use the terms not in a bad way, and the idea that everyone can be split up into this neat binary and put in one category or the other is also inherently hugely flawed. It would be one thing if these were terms left for people to just apply to themselves but they're not, they're being foisted on people and always the terms are used to try create yet another gender binary people can just shove everyone under (except somehow cis people almost never seem to get included in the 'exempt' category. Funny that) or to deny that non binary people and trans men ever experience oppression and abuse or to deny either explicitly or essentially that non binary people even exist and basically reduce everyone down to their """birth sex""". It's just yet another way for people to be bigoted and hateful towards oppressed groups instead of targeting the actual sources of transphobia and sorry but this binarist nonsense trying to shove us all in one group or another hits non binary people especially hard often, and I'm sick to death of it. Time and time again people just slap the term 'TME' on entire groups of people as a way to dismiss, silence or invalidate them and there's no way that isn't causing a huge amount of harm to a lot of very vulnerable people, but also I've even seen people throw the term 'TMA' around also as a way to effectively silence people, even those very people they claim to be basically 'white knighting' for; all they're actually doing really is talking over that group, as if they know best about someone else's oppression.

On top of that, who's even 'exempt' anyway? As if people don't get mistaken for something else they're not all the time. But the people who use these terms just act like everyone can be neatly divided up into one category or the other when that isn't how the world works, that isn't how bigotry and hate works. I'm not saying that transmisogyny doesn't exist but a lot of that is basically transphobia + misogyny, a lot of other transphobia realistically is also actually transphobia + misogyny, so where exactly is the line drawn between them? And so many of the exact same forms of hate and abuse and oppression can hit trans people of all genders equally badly regardless of what gender the person throwing that shit at them believes them to be; that same shit can also get thrown at and cause harm to intersex people, even at some cis people. There is no clear dividing line between so much of the oppression and abuse and hatred that some people simply want to write off as only ever being capable of actually harming trans women, and there is so much overlap between the experiences of all trans people (as well as many intersex people and even some 'gender non-conforming' cis people) but that dichotomy just erases and ignores that and tries to create new divisions amongst people who should be (and generally still are) standing together. And overall it's the 'most oppressed ever/oppressor with every form of privilege and power possible' dichotomy shit with absolutely no room for any nuance that ultimately seems to stem from radfem bullshit just repackaged in a slightly different way, to make out everyone's either a victim or an Evil Oppressor essentially. Radfems love their 'delicate fragile women/evil oppressive abusers with every privilege possible AKA men' stuff so much and that stuff is seeping into the way a lot of people talk about other issues, even amongst people who think they hate radfems and have nothing in common with them. That may not be what people intended or how the terms were meant to be used but it's how it's ended up unfortunately, even if it's not manifesting in exactly the same ways. (Also people often are just flinging the terms at others based on how they look. Often they don't know that person's gender, they don't know what they were deemed to be at birth, they just look at them and decide whether they're 'TME' or 'TMA' based on looks.)

(I'm absolutely not blaming trans women for this by the way. I don't know or even particularly care who created or popularised these terms but I think ultimately this all stems from cis transphobes overall, people who hate and want rid of all of us, and way too much of this shit seems to come from cis people who believe they're 'trans allies' but seem to think they have some right to be the authority on the oppression and abuse experienced by trans people and then also conveniently seem to forget that cis people are the real and main source of transphobia and are the group most likely to be 'exempt' from transmisogyny. I've even seen cis people talking over trans women and attacking them when the trans women have tried to point out what's wrong with the terms. There are also too many trans men who love to fling the term TME about, not only towards themselves but at others, even people whose gender they don't know, because they seem to have bought into this idea that trans men are the evil ultimate oppressors, worse than cis men even, and that trans men experience no oppression ever and they start attacking anyone who tries to point out why they're wrong.)

I think a lot of people on here fundamentally misunderstand the TMA/TME dichotomy. TMA or TME isn't a label you are designated based on how you look, it's an identifier of the forms of oppression you face. It's no different to me that using terms like "person with a penis" or "person who can get pregnant."

Do some people use the terms in bad faith? Yes. People can use neutral terms in bad ways. If I say "all people with penises are horrible creeps who prey on others", that's clearly using a neutral term in a bad faith way to invoke a mental image based on a history of bigotry.

But that doesn't mean the term is inherently useless or bad.