#to make transmisogyny irrelevant to me

[butchwink]

see im agender and i fought real frickin hard okay

[punkeropercyjackson]

Y'know what i love making lists apperantly so here's one clearing up the misconceptions re Pjo characters and lgbt stuff/gender

Percy is NOT masculine in any way PLEASE at least not in a white way(afropunk),literally every transfem in the fandom i've met which have been a loooooot think she's an egg and a very femme one specifically.They're the ones who use Percy's actual personality and story too so they're right and they should say it

Idc about your opinion on Percabeth,Annabeth is a wlw and it dosen't need to involve Percy in any way,especially if you make jokes about her being a girl like she's actually a binary guy(if you do chances are you've never had a girlfriend)

Thalia's not a pick me,she's a 90s/2000s girl raised who's mentally and physically 15.Also has as much tgirl swag as Percy does and is probs a lesbian(Goth transbian swag specifically and all That with Reyna)

Piper is even LESS of a pick me,it's right there in the text that femininity was ruined for Piper because of racist white girl bullies and didn't have native girl friends to help her reclaim it and Rick's a pussy for not making her a brown butch queen.Do not buy into the propaganda,it's made by trans girlypop Percy haters so they're overcompensating

Nico is nobody's [insert sexual word here],he's 15 and a touchestarved trauma gay who's scared to ask for affection.Also Percy's not his type personality wise,not physical apperance wise and this is what was said in the scene that launched the trope of Percy sexually harrasing him as 'comedy' by people who've never had boyfriends and also why they think Jason and Nico were queerbait

Speaking of Jason,pretty much any orientation makes perfect sense but he's definitely a tboy,Percy literally said he looks like Superman and he was raised by a wolfwoman

Leo is not ugly or an incel,people are just racist.Also he's the other side of Percy's coin Luke stans think he is

Luke's not gay-coded and i'd argue he comes off as a chaser more than anything consider all That with Percy,Annabeth,Thalia AND Silena who's a parallel to Patrochilles with Clarisse

Butch lesbian Clarisse is not stereotyping but playing off lesbian history amd reclamation because Rick highkey made her a caricature of fat butch lesbians

Fr*zel bad,Hazel's a lesbian who's never had a good dynamic with a guy that way

Also Frank is transmasc.His arc is about being emasculated for both being chinese-canadian and his personality on it's own but reclaiming manhood for himself and Mars' blessing is straight up called testosterone in the narration

Y'all can forget about Percy fucking those old men cause she described finding old dudes not handsome at least twice lol(and one of them was Luke LOL).She's 18 and as a 23 year old who wouldn't date an old person either cause like her i pull age appropriate people instead of being desperate

And not technically Pjo but Alex is textually a transfem who hates being theythemed.Rick's intentions are irrelevant,that's a common irl transfem thing and to erase that is transmisogyny

[enarei]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you have even a rudimentary grasp on feminist theory, and could benefit from an education.

maybe you're right, and you're welcome to educate me (like, genuinely, I would probably enjoy that). I would appreciate if you were a bit more specific with what of what I've said makes you think that, because I believe the gist of my argument is very important if not to feminism broadly, to a model of feminism that is capable of incorporating trans women without stabbing them in the back within its critique of patriarchy —namely that there isn't one intrinsic, "natural" female/woman identity or trait that invites misogyny, it's a self-reifying set of relations which creates the necessity for the concept of "womanhood" to exist, performing a woman's roles and being perceived as a woman is what makes women, women, and that includes trans women, there's little more to it than that

if you wanna set yourself apart from everyone and say you're actually a real woman, because you say you are, and dissect the difference from the transfem that doesn't necessarily think of their relation to gender through the same exclusive binary lens, however that manifests in practice, whichever labels and pronouns they choose to use, then do so, but I think you'll find that gets us no closer to examining why we are actually oppressed and the ideas we have to disseminate to counter that, because that line, while important for self-actualization, isn't actually very relevant to how we're perceived, which is often the most important aspect of how we're treated by society. while we can affirm our personal identity in relationships that are both recurring and premised on mutual respect, we don't get that privilege most of the time, and people's understanding of us are based on assumptions.

it does not matter then that you ID as a woman and the other person doesn't if you never get the opportunity to say that, it's completely irrelevant. if you are both read as <genderweird person dressed like a woman & male voice>, you're both legitimate targets for modes of violence for people associated with the words "tranny faggot".

I also find this very disingenuous because it ignores that passing, presenting as our preferred gender, isn't always a possibility, likewise, the implication that "men" by necessity can't be discriminated for gender non-conformity under exactly the same rules as non-passing trans women is completely arbitrary. you don't know how other people are being read, you don't know if they're being read as a gay man or a tranny trying to hide the fact they're tranny, or something in between, how okay the interviewer is with either and where do they draw the line. you simply don't know that! we could run the same thought experiment where a trans woman is boymoding for a job interview, wearing a binder to hide her tits (something I've done countless times), using her deadname and not displaying any signs of femininity, and she gets the job and the "man" who has a panty wearing kink and maybe also presents a lot more overtly effeminate in public doesn't, because the interviewer thought she was less of a faggot.

even if the "man" may have an easier time concealing what you would call a "fetish" at work, something you can't really distinguish from a normal aspect of a person's gender expression without a degree of moralism, are trans women that are not always out, or hide their transness at their job, not subjected to transmisogyny, are they not deserving of calling themselves trans women? should we shun them and lump them with "chasers" because they are not baring their femininity full time and being pummeled for that constantly? like, where do you draw the line? and I'm not saying the guy who likes to wear his wife's skirt while she pegs him and is otherwise a massive homophobe the rest of the time gets it like you or me, but I think it's pretty obtuse to pretend the line between "binary trans woman" and "non-trans CAMAB person who cross-dresses; whose oppression should be understood under the framing of transmisogyny", can only be measured by those two points.

[mr-ribbit]

Really hit a sore spot calling your long posts long I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️. Txttletale is the bigot. She's admitted to saying racist stuff before, there's screenshots. That's partially why I don't like the bitch, she's an asshole, I don't care if she's trans. Then when someone says anything remotely negative about her it's all "SHE'S TRANS! DON'T SAY A SINGLE BAD THING ABOUT HER BECAUSE SHE'S TRANS!" and then block your ears when it's pointed out how irrelevant that is for several reasons. So I guess I'm now forced to assume everyone still following/interacting with her after this turn a blind eye to racism when it's against certains groups or when it's coming from a popular person they like. No matter how lightly or harshly someone criticizes her (or someone in her circle), the fucking mob comes out screeching about transmisogyny. Get a new shield.

That's all I can be bothered to say. I'm tired. Maybe you don't routinely die on the sword for her whenever someone brings up her shittiness, but a lot of people do.

again, it's not a sore spot just because I responded to the thing you said. like yeah my posts tend to be long, maybe because I had a lot to say maybe because I ramble. im not mad about it, I just thought it was worth pointing out, particularly when you were telling me to fuck off and mocking me for "caring about people's feelings". did you want me to just like... ignore your ask? do you imagine everything I'm saying is being screamed through tears or something? for context on the following post: I am chilling typing it on my phone and making a stir fry.

you say you don't care that she's trans, but it's literally half of your message. you might not care that she's trans but it's being brought up because of how it feels to be on the receiving end of this type of pattern when transmisogyny is so prevalent and uses the same tactics. it's not being used as a shield, it's being brought up because it is something she is experiencing. if you personally don't think your vitriol towards her (and me, another person you do not know but feel comfortable being kind of mean to) is related to gender, then great. but it's still mean and other people who *do* behave this way because they know she's trans have been saying the same things. so it is possible that her, my, or others' responses are not actually about your extremely specific grievances, but the large amount of grievances being received from multiple places

the reason she's admitted to saying racist stuff before is because she has acknowledged that it was racist and apologized for it, admitted she disagrees with the sentiment now, and illustrated why her post was wrong so that others who had agreed with it would understand. im not gonna speak much on this part because it's not my place to decide what racist stuff is ok to forgive and what isnt and I don't think anyone wants to hear that for me, but I do think that if you think she is a bigot, you should block her account and ignore her posts. i don't really see why you would only bring it up here to shame me, an unrelated person, for defending someone against bullying. it doesn't seem very respectful to the actual people hurt by that post.

also again I'd like to point out that parts of your message here intentionally paint me, her, and more importantly all other people that care about transmisogyny as "a screeching mob". this is the kind of stuff that makes it look like you do actually disrespect trans women / allies. it's the same thing a lot of bigots do when they want to depict someone as irrational, crazy, or otherwise not worth hearing out. even if you disagree with me, her, or others on this, I'd much prefer if you just talked about it rather than tell me I'm screeching and rambling and shielding and doing all of these things that make me out to be less of a person than you. this isn't an accusation, I'm just trying to explain how you're coming off so you can understand why people might still think you're being mean to trans women.

again going back to my post, my main point is the same as yours here: maybe some people here *aren't* attacking certain people just because they're trans. but they're still being really mean and targeting single individuals in a way that is upsetting to me, and feels unfair and immature. and what trans women ARE trying to say is that, intentional or not, it sucks how often it happens to them as a group, and they'd like to be given a chance to explain how that feels more often without being told they're whining, screeching, aggressive "bitches"

also like i am not "dying on a sword" for her, she is my friend who I know is not a horrible person, and so i thought it might be okay to speak up on the matter because I think people are being mean to my friend. sometimes people can talk about things without it being a sword death

[genderkoolaid]

please consider why trans women might take offense at being lumped in with "amab people" as a whole or with "failed men". the way amab/afab is used in discourse is virtually the same as male/female, so when an ally or another trans person refers to us as "amab people" it doesn't feel from when a transphobe refers to us as males (for example, your post wouldn't be functionally different if you changed "amab" for "males"

beyond it being offensive to lump in trans women with amab people as a whole, it also doesn't reflect reality for most of us. I've been on hormones for several years and don't get misgendered generally. the way I exist in the world and how I get treated has infinitely more in common with cis women than it does with "amab people" generally. If someone lives her life as a woman, why would a core part of it relate to "antimasculism" or whatever? How is it not biological essentialism to say that about someone just off the genitals she was born with and with no regard to how she's actually living in the present tense? for a lot of trans women, being a woman eventually becomes way more relevant to our day to day lives and oppression that we face than being trans, which can end up being pretty irrelevant

please consider why trans women would differentiate ourselves from amab people" or "failed males". it's not trying to ignore our own history or whatever but having enough of a brain to notice how the way we get treated after transitioning is completely different from the way we were treated before, so it wouldn't make sense to lump us in with people who only have the same genitals as us.

I empathize with trans men and nb people who want to talk about the way the gender they were assigned at birth impacts their oppression and their being victims of misogyny while still living in their current genders but I don't agree with extrapolating that analysis to trans women without really thinking about its implications or whether it actually applies to us, since it just ends up being transmisogynist and not reflective of our experiences

(sorry for writing so much in response to your post, but it's something that's been irking me for a while and several people shared your post and seeing it so much without any pushback made me feel upset and wanting to respond. I hope I didn't come off as too antagonistic since I care a lot about solidarity in the trans community, but it's the kind of thing that often makes me feel unwelcome in trans spaces)

Don't worry, you didn't come off as antagonistic at all. This was very polite.

My intention wasn't so much that antimasculism is a key part of every trans woman's life, but that the way society treats trans women is impacted by antimasculism. In the same way a trans man might not personally face misogyny much anymore and feel very different from cis women, but the way society views trans men is wrapped up in a lot of misogyny. A lot of stereotypes about trans people (trans women being aggressive/sexually predatory, trans men being tiny and sexualized) come from the same sexist ideas that are used against marginalized cis women & cis men, and i think its a mistake to ignore these connections. I was thinking more from the perspective of "how transphobia sees trans people" than "how trans people experience sexism as individuals"; I think trying to analyze how cis society sees trans people without talking about how our agabs affect that leaves a lot missing from the discussion of transphobia.

Although I want to emphasize that I don't think thats the extent of transmisogyny/transandrophobia, and its also a mistake to ignore how misogynistic stereotypes are used against trans women and antimasculist stereotypes are used against trans men, as well as the ways misandrogyny is used against all trans people. the ways amount of each of these people experience is going to vary a lot depending on everyone's unique situation ofc, and I didn't mean to imply that trans women only experience antimasculism or that misogyny isn't also a crucial part of their oppression. I personally feel that solidarity between trans people and gnc people of our agab who are also considered "failed [x]" is important, which shapes a lot of my opinions & posts, but i also get why a lot of people would be uncomfortable with that kind of position & I don't blame you for that.

I also want to clarify I used "trans people who were amab" to avoid ignoring trans people who don't identify as transfem who were assigned male, since a lot of posts about trans issues end up re-binarizing nonbinary people by assuming "transmasc" and "transfem" are enough to sum up all trans people. I used agab because I was specifically thinking about how agabs relate to transphobic perceptions of trans people, but I can understand how that may have been a mistake since agabs are far from the only thing that influences transphobia & how much it does can vary a lot from person to person.

I hope this explained more the reasons I made & wrote that post. I really do appreciate your opinion on this & I hope that comes across.

[fite-club]

on that note you should find it very, very suspicious if someone is trying to debate about trans issues but flat-out refuses to disclose their trans identity and/or gender assigned at birth. nine times out of ten it’s either a cis terf or tirf, or a transmasc trying to dismiss the idea of transmisogyny as a systematic oppressive force that doesn’t target transmascs. if someone says “i don’t want to share that information for my own safety”, that means “i don’t want people to find out i’m speaking about the transfem experience without being transfem myself and harassing me for it”. trying to pretend like GAAB is completely irrelevant to trans experiences and discussions is to think of transness as an ephemeral internal spirituality and not the actual real-life lived experiences of people navigating physical space in the real world. it’s not just relevant, it’s, like, THE thing that makes trans people trans and trans issues trans issues.

[dayurno]

Hmm I definitely agree with most of your rant regarding neils ao3 characterization, with the idea that gay relationships can't be written as heteronormative, honestly especially if one of them is gender nonconforming, and I do think some of the dislike around his character can be from a place of transmisogyny. And people who ask for more masc4masc and fem4fem couples are a bit dumb. But I still have a bone to pick with his characterization on ao3 and I can't put my finger on whyyyy

Maybe, it's because (and I'm speaking about the state of the fandom back around 3??or 4?? Years ago when I would actively go through the tags and look for fanfiction and neil was my fave) it was always neil bottoming in every fic ever, no matter what character he was being shipped with in the fic, but like a lot of these fics or even the ones that weren't explicit would have something happen to him where he was the victim or he needed to be coddled and comforted by everyone else, and while I don't think neil is impervious and will never feel and inch of distress in his life, i can't help but think it's a bit ooc (not that there's anything wrong with ooc fic) and it's like neil can also be dangerous and has the capacity to hurt ppl and can be a dickhead but I don't think alot of fic back then showed that? They'd just call him sassy maybe he'd make a few quips and that's it. I think theres a lot of fics out there that wipe out his complexity ig. Maybe I just hate his characterization bc I wanna be a contrarion and I find his characterization boring if it's like that because you can find it in any fandom assigned bottom ever and ive seen it too much so i wanted to see a switch up or its more about his personality being written and less about being feminine and bottoming though i do think the ppl who write him being more feminine also tend to write his character a certain way. But like I also cant help but wonder where it comes from, like it's neil written like this and rarely ever andrew so

Back when I was younger I used to think people in fandoms would make the character who revieves the more feminine one, maybe it's bc it makes it easier to relate and project, or maybe it's bc it makes it easier to contend with a gay relationship if you can fit into like heteronormative boxes bc that's what's familiar to you and that's what you know and see everywhere, or maybe it is just people being fetishistic but now I don't know🤔 also I do think top neil or dom neil is just kinda fun like you said to me kandrew r more the type to have vanilla missionary sex their whole lives but neil would be more adventurous and willing to try new things, he also has cheek and audacity which is cute, like a puppy

Sorry this is so long, I've just thought about it before and has no one to discuss it with

no need to apologize i asked for opinions after all!!!!!!!

i see what you mean re: neil losing his edge, and i do think that it happens a lot with him because he is the protagonist and a prominent character in the vast majority of aftg fics, but i wouldn't say the same de-fanging process doesn't happen to andrew. the fandom has made it a point to soften all of andrew's edges; it's one of the most common bones people pick with nora that she never gives into the idea that andrew becomes a normal, well-adjusted, life-loving member of society post-canon. whether i enjoy andrew in a softer way or not is irrelevant, but i think this is definitely not a neil-only phenomena. i wouldn't even say it's really more pronounced when it's neil! i just think that helplessness, that lack of agency and bite, is a staple of most fandom content because it's self-indulgent and forces characters to act on their relationships by asking for and receiving help from their peers, whatever it might look like for each specific fandom

now i will say that i don't think that the process of making characters wholesome and ultimately consumable has anything to do with whether they are written as feminine or not; whether they are only in a receiving position or not. sexual preferences and gender presentations are inherently neutral: they don't say anything about a person's personality. i think neil bottoming being such a popular trope is just due to a natural consequence of how andrew and neil's relationship is presented in the books — andrew as someone who, at the point of where canon stops, physically cannot allow himself to be on the receiving end of any sexual act, and neil, who loves him and wants to help andrew to find pleasure in whatever way he can. it's the dynamic we're given in the original text, so it's what people tend to think about more.

of course i'm not saying it never overlaps with neil's excessive sanitizing and de-fanging, and it might as well be, for some people, that neil's acquiescence to andrew having control of what they do in bed is an entirely justifiable reason for writing him in a more feminine way. my opinion is, i think, just that that is not inherently immoral — that feminine people with those sexual preferences exist, and at times might even find that their gender presentation plays a big role in why they prefer to interact with sex the way they do. the history of femme pillow princesses in the lesbian community is vast, just as is the history of stone top butches. these minor niches don't imply that all feminine and masculine people must respectively bottom and top, but we do no one a favor by disregarding their experiences when they are a big part of how queer people do sex. i think we fall into old conservative myths when we moralize sexual preferences; i think we try to conform to cisheteronormative ideals when we deny gender presentations that are inherently tied to sex.

and just as a personal comment, i actually agree with you about neil being written as a perpetual, helpless victim and losing his agency. i don't enjoy it. i think it is born from indulgence, born from projection and wish fulfilment, but indulgence isn't immoral. projection and wish fulfilment aren't immoral, either. and, while i don't like the sanitization of aftg characters, i think it is less a character or fandom-specific issue and more of a material consequence of late stage capitalism; it's a symptom of a sickness that goes beyond our little constructed world, and one we should discuss, in my opinion, outside of the boundaries of fandom and individual guilt

i guess my tl;dr is that sometimes things are bad and we have to sit with their right to exist anyway. and my general tl;dr is that we help no one when we go out of our ways to condemn and criticize content where one of the characters is gender non-conforming because of said gender nonconformity. and, ultimately, that what we are missing is more fanfiction about kevin day in tiny tennis skirts

[moontaingoat]

So basically the former group has a weird grudge against trans women for being visible (NOT the blessing other trans people think it is, I assure you) and the latter party is responsible for producing hand-wringing apologetics for the former.

There are unique forms of oppression experienced by transfems as well that don't fall under transmisogyny, because that was never the function of the word. And if trans men want people to think that this isn't petty one-upmanship against trans women, they shouldn't be marching in lockstep with a term so obviously created to mirror it.

Especially when the man who coined it was an open misogynist himself until it started getting him negative attention.

saying people shouldnt use the word unless they want to be assumed as arguing in bad faith is just a very unadvanced take. not everyone is so terminally online in the Trans Discourse Vocabulary to know that a word with different roots- trans-andro-phobia - is "supposed to be" a mirror to a word like transmisogyny. my argument is not everyone is using the word to be a dick and that's the beauty of language is we get to make up words and decide the meaning through broad use. saying "that was never the function of the word" well, welcome to the english language, where the meaning of words change as we use them.

"if trans men want-" let me stop you there, trans men are not a monolith, just like trans women are not, and literally any other group in existence. everyone is coming from their own experiences and forming different opinions based on them. i'm not responsible for misogynistic trans men, but they make me horribly sad, because my life is so enriched by the presence of women, trans & cis.

and come on, the person who coined a word is almost always irrelevant. there's plenty of people who say transmisogyny who have never heard of julia serano, and that's fine.

overall i'm advocating for more people to compare their different experiences in a more constructive way than "who's oppression is the worst". and for people to stop acting like the word transandrophobia is inherently hurting anyone. it's not the word's fault that most people of any gender are fucking annoying and self centered.

[just-antithings]

Ppl on this hellsite ship of Theseus (https://youtu.be/Ui-ArJRqEvU) their arguments so much it’s insane.

For instance, I just saw a callout of someone for being transmisogynistic. “Oh no!” I say, “that’s not good! Let me see the evidence! Looks like they reblogged something from a ‘known transmisogynist?’ hmm, that seems flimsy but maybe this is like a terf who’s super open about hating trans women. That would be pretty sus. Let me see for myself.”

*checks them out*

“so this known transmisogynist is a trans guy who has made some posts about transandrophobia? Uh oh, I get a bad feeling, let me check the DNI of the person who made the callout and- yep, they consider believing in transandrophobia transmisogynistic. Fucking of course.”

Why does transmascs talking about our experiences with oppression make some people so angry? Might it be because you are biased against trans men? A bias that may, perhaps, need a name? Idk, just spitballing here. 🙄

The fact the term was coined by a proshipper is not only irrelevant, but also a bullshit excuse for disregarding the idea. The term antisemitism was coined by an open antisemite to describe his own beliefs, and people still use that. The creator doesn’t fucking matter, what matters is that people said “hey, we’ve all experienced this specific oppression and we’re gonna use this word to talk about it.” and some other people said they weren’t allowed to do that.

Discussions of trans issues that don’t center on trans women aren’t fucking bigoted against them, anymore then the concept of lesbophobia is bigoted against gay men or the idea of anti-Asian racism bigoted against black people. Trans women aren’t the only people who experience fucking transphobia!

Honestly at this point I get suspicious of anyone who starts talking about transmisogyny without clarifying that they don’t mean trans men talking about issues of our own.

👆👆👆👆

[writinghannibal]

Is your analysis that trans people (or people like Bill) can't commit crime in stories (and real life) like anyone else? Or that those abused and have an identity crisis, unsure of themselves and their identities, not realistic in any way? I see what you're saying about terms, but I wince at the idea of "gatekeeping" for the danger of it also sending a bad message. Such as "this group here can do no wrong, and this reason can never be used."

Good morning, anon.

I would hope that "trans people can't commit crime" is not my take considering I play Hannibal Lecter -- a serial killing cannibal -- as trans masc. That would be a little bit at odds with that particular thought process.

This is long and is going behind a cut.

The analysis that I provided was based on the specific character of Buffalo Bill and the impact that that character had on cultural consciousness, perceptions of trans women, and the perpetuation of transmisogyny. Buffalo Bill still has a negative impact on trans women or trans feminine people. There is such a struggle for positive representation of trans people in media because we have historically been given...uh, well. Shit.

Things like Boys Don't Cry. Crying Game. Ace Ventura. Silence of the lambs. There was a documentary on Netflix that I watched awhile ago that featured trans celebrities like Laverne Cox talking about the media that she grew up with and how it had an impact on herself and other trans women. There are some other trans people included. Let me Google and find the name of it....

Disclosure.

If you haven't watched it, I recommend it.

Or that those abused and have an identity crisis, unsure of themselves and their identities, not realistic in any way?

I'm not 100% on what you're saying here, but... I never intended to imply that a person who suffered from abuse and who was, subsequently, struggling with their identity was not realistic. I would be the last person to suggest that that is unrealistic. I'm a survivor of CSA and some pretty intense abuse and have struggled with my own identity. Now that I'm in my mid 30s, I have a pretty damn good idea of who and what I am and what makes me happy. But it is far from uncommon or unrealistic for someone who has endured a lot of abuse to wonder who they are, and where they fit in the world.

My main assertion in the post that you're referencing was that one would have to be careful in playing a character like Jame Gumb. Thomas Harris and the film adaptation of Silence of the Lambs presented us with a character who's struggles with gender identity were a part of why they were something to be afraid of -- even without the violence, murder, and skin suit. Because of how Gumb was portrayed, those struggles with gender identity are what is most keyed in on and remembered about the character rather than the other references to numerous real world serial killers.

Jame Gumb applies lipstick and says "Would you fuck me? I'd fuck me. I'd fuck me hard." The following scene, set to 'Goodbye Horses', ends with Gumb tucking and posing for the mirror. This scene, next to the "it puts the lotion in the basket" is the most commonly referenced when talking -- and joking-- about Buffalo Bill. Regardless of whether or not Gumb is actually trans is irrelevant to a vast majority of the audiences watching the movie, or reading the book. All that matters is that they're seeing the "other", and the nuances of that otherness are irrelevant. Trans, gender nonconforming, cross dressing, confusion regarding gender... it is irrelevant to the audience viewing these traits that we are shown as reasons WHY we should be afraid of Gumb.

It is 100% possible to play a character like Gumb WITHOUT using their struggles with identity or even their trans identity as an aspect of what is "wrong" with them, but rather an aspect of what "happened" to them. Trans and gender nonconforming people face a lot of real world struggles, including homelessness, abuse, and social rejection. All of these are things that do traumatize real people.

And they could be used when building the backstory and personality of a fictional character. I have seen it done, and would absolutely play within a story line with a well done and well thought out Buffalo Bill. There is a difference between writing something because it feels like a story that needs to be told, being mindful and interested in what is being said -- and being exploitative or doing something for the shock value.

Just as there's a difference between "they were confused about their gender identity" and

Which is where we end up in a really tired trope.

And that trope that I'm referring to is this: a trans feminine coded character is reduced to a violent, fear inducing, man in a dress that commits atrocities. We see it as early as 1930s Murder! -- a cross dressing performer murders an actress. Pyscho -- a delusional young man, tormented by the loss of his overbearing mother, murders people at his family hotel. Dressed as his mother. Homicidal, released shortly after Psycho... has a really convoluted plot that hinges around a trans person murdering because they're trans and were abused. Essentially.

Four Flies on Gray Velvet. Trans woman murdering over gender and abuse. Again.

A Reflection of Fear -- I bet you can guess what the plot of this one is. Major warnings for incest on this one.

Terror Train, Dressed to Kill, Deadly Blessing, Unhinged, Sleepaway Camp, Fatal Games, Stripped to Kill, Newlydeads.... the list goes on. A majority of these films play on the "child abused, forced to act as other gender/confused about gender becomes bloodthirsty killer" thing.

I think you can see how Buffalo Bill fits into this particular trope. One of the things that makes the narrative of Gumb's struggles with identity and abuse from childhood so damaging is actually the fact that it is stated several times that Gumb is not a "real transsexual" -- and I can see in my original post how there was some confusion about my opinion here. I was trying to assert how I would play Hannibal differently than he is presented in canon with this question, and was pointing out that Hannibal is the one who brings up the fact that Gumb is struggling with gender identity.

And he undermines that with asserting that Gumb is "not a real transsexual" and that he has "tried to be". While this does attempt to show the audience that "trans people aren't like this, overall"... which is a positive, I guess... it does create this whole dynamic where we're lead to believe that Jame Gumb is too mentally ill to have a clue about their own identity. It sets up and emphasizes a lot of gatekeeping that trans people experience from the medical community in terms of their identities. "Informed consent" is a fairly recent thing. Shit, even when I started to transition, I had to have letters from TWO different therapists that I had seen for a period of time. It isn't like that anymore. But that's an aside.

So, it isn't that "this group here can do no wrong and this reason can never be used". It is that that reason has been used. It has been used again and again in popular media in a way that has created and perpetuates real world problems. Problems like the whole thing around bathrooms and trans people -- with the narrative that these people in a panic about trans women using women's restrooms because they didn't want "men" in the bathroom with their little girls. The fear that these "men" would harm women and girls because they had access to the women's restroom. Please note I'm putting "men" in quotes because the people being targeted by these campaigns are not men. They're women, who happen to be trans. They have never been "men". But the arguments that these people bring up to try and justify their hatred for and fear of trans women are heavily influenced by popular media. Messages that have been on film since the 1930s -- and that's just film.

Ok, with all of that out of the way. You want to play a character who is a serial killer, who was abused (statistically likely) and who is trans, gender nonconforming, or even confused about their gender.

You can do that.

You can! You could even do it well. My caution, my whole point here, is that you should be aware of everything that has come before your specific portrayal and that you should avoid the "murders because they're trans" trope outlined above. There are a lot of really interesting ways that you could incorporate issues of gender identity into a villain character without depending on the queer coding and intentional "othering" that we have all grown up with in our media.

Let me know if you have any questions about this! I may or may not write something about Hannibal and gender later, it depends on my spoons.

[genderfluidlucifer]

Response to being asked to give  an opinion on Connie’s calout by residentevil-4

(Tw: CSAM, rape fic, incest fic, predatory behavior, racism, ableism, kink mention, nsfw mentions. Minors should probably dni.)

“Connie and I know each other irl and went to school together for 3 years, although they now live in a different state and have cut contact with me. We went to a private therapy school in Manhattan as we're both disabled and were deemed unable to attend public school. Even though we were pretty close, Connie didn't like having photos taken of them, so I don't have any selfies of the two of us; however, these are from our sophomore and senior yearbooks which at least confirms that we were in the same year at school. People who have seen Connie's selfies should be able to confirm that that is what they look like. First and foremost, Connie is not TMA. They are intersex and the two of us have discussed intersex issues both in person and online, but they are still decidedly CAFAB.” Ok so first off, I want to address this part of the callout. To be honest...was it really necessary to literally doxx Connie ehre? Because this textbook definition of doxxing. Yes Connie’s done some shitty things but I freally don’t think that what they’ve done warrants this level of doxxing. Or...even better, any doxxing. This feels like a really unnecessary breach of privacy, revealing sensitive information on Connie’s childhood that they choose to confide in you with. I really don’t agree with this aspect of the callout as it feels very invasive and bordering on stalkerish.  Btw when I say bordering on stalkerish I’m not directly calling you a stalker Bonnie. Just so we’re clear. I am not defending Connie supposedly faking being TMA. Because faking being TMA is a very serious issue. HOWEVER since I don’t know Connie irl and to be quite frank it’s none of my business what the nature of their agab is. Were not close and I’m certainly not going to like lead Connie onto thinking we’re friends just to confirm this with them because that would be creepy. So to be honest I’m going to take this part of the callout with again of salt for now.

[ID: A cropped screenshot of a numbered list Connie posted to their blog hadrosaurs in response to an ask. 

“3. I’m TMA And that’s completely irrelevant. I’m not accusing them because of their gender I didn’t even know their gender when they said that to me saying that they said that because they fucking said that and the reaction to it was incredibly alarming. Don’t fucking say that stuff to people.]

I mean I”m not a trans woman so take this with a grain of salt if you want but...I don’t see how this is really proof of Connie being deliberately transmisogynistic? Yes Connie gives iffy retellings of mistakes they’ve made in the past. I’ve seen that on their blog before and I won’t pretend it doesn’t happen. BUT here they sound genuine enough and to be honest a growing issue I’ve seen with callouts as of late is. A person confirms they in fact did not do the thing they were called out for. And then the people who make the callout choose to see it as proof of incriminating behavior anyways. To be honest it’s a big problem and it’s also incredibly unfair to the person being called out. If you’re so determined at that point to see the person as bigoted no matter what they say then of course anything they say can be seen as proof. So I’m going to have to pass on this bit of evidence. “Connie responded: “Final note: I have spoken extensively with several trans women about using TMA to describe myself. I will not be getting into discourse about that on this blog again. All that leads to is people demanding my medical records and calling me slurs. If you wanna have a thoughtful conversation about it direct message me cause it’s not happening again here.” Again this really doesn’t seem all that self incriminating. Connie mentions here that they’ve talked to rl trans woman about whether or not they can be considered TMA. Connie really doesn’t have to disclose that personal information to people for any reason. Yes even when people are e including this ask response in a callout. And considering lots of people DO get invasive about Connie’s medical history ans general personal life over matters like this? I feel their reaction is pretty understandable here. “Connie has constantly compared “exclusionists” (or anyone, really) to TERFs, even when the people in question are not transmisogynistic, trans exclusionary radfems, or are even transmisogyny affected themselves.

“ Gonna have to disagree with this part of the callout too. Lots of ace inclus blogs, even some run by trans women , have proven that the ace exclus movement was started by swerfs/terfs. But the blog that has the most evidence for this is courteousmingler on tumblr. I suggest you check out that blog’s archiving of the history of ace exclus rhetoric before rushing to call me a transmisogynist for disagreeing with this part of the callout. I looked through all of the evidence for Connie being racist and tbh as a black ndn it all feels incredibly flimsy. It’d be one thing if Connie was using their experiences to derail and invalidate the discussions about how black people are oppressed But they weren’t doing that there at all. This part of the post feels incredibly biased. And like OP is looking for things to be mad about. Going to have to pass on this list of evidence. Also uh I seem to recall that residentevil04 got called out for some questionable behavior as well. “Both me (insepsy, hi) and ezrat have had really weird spikes in activity on our Statcounters, both on the same day. (Saturday, 4/17/21) For both of us, majority of the pages looked at by these visitors have been related to or about Connie, or have been posts that Connie would find "problematic" such as the f slur untagged or something related to "panphobia"/aphobia. I’m sorry but...none of the proof of cyberstalking holds any water. Visiting someone’s blogs and rbing posts to disagree with them is not cyberstalking. Keeping tabs on urls that an abusive person who has harassed are using so you can block them (in this case with kyoshi) and warn your mutuals is not stalking. As a victim of rl stalking it’s...really weird to call this legit stalking at all. Much less claim that you have damning proof of it being stalking when no such evidence exists in the callout. Besides after Connie and nonbinarydave called out one of kyoshi’s buddies for sending a death threat hate anon to nonbinarydave’s toddler st4lker partly admitted to doing it a few times. Then other mutuals in kyoshi’s toxic social circle clearly began joining in. Making side accounts where they tried to spin a false narrative of nonbinarydave’s daughter being one of their alters (ableist as hell.) And also trying to do it in such a way that they thought would trigger nonibnarydave’s psychosis (also ableist as hell.) If you’re going to drag Connie for their mistakes and never let them move on from those mistakes then it’s only fair to do that to people you agree with who also do toxic/bigoted things. ALso the fact that your wording here suggests that you think panphobia and aphobia aren’t real makes me doubt this claim even more. Exclus and their allies are notorious for mislabeling inclus disagreeing with them as stalking. “connie said that they would release that info at a later time and the minor began to argue with them that they had a responsibility regardless of their complicated relationship with age. in this argument connie for a time kept their age ambiguous and at one point told the minor (who confirmed in a later ask that they were severely traumatized by adults) that they obviously weren’t traumatized. connie quickly deleted this ask and any mentions of it and the next post they reblogged was about how wrong it was to try and quantify or discount others’ trauma. on my old blog i @ed them in the replies and asked if they had just done that. connie admitted to it and said it was fucked up but quickly blocked + deleted my comment. i can’t remember whether or not connie apologized to the minor, they may have? but yeah. i thought that was pretty weird.”] I do agree with some of the concern here that adults shouldn’t over expose minors in discourse. I’ve been contemplating this for awhile myself. And trying to figure out how to take better steps to avoid including minors who are triggered by discourse in discourse, especially. HOWEVER I have one little issue with this addition to the callout. If that is the case then exclus and their allies need to practice this as well. You cannot ignore the fact that the reason a lot of minors are getting involved in exclus discourse is due to adult exclus and their allies forcing minors to pick a side in the discourse. Y’all are not at all exempt from this problem. I still remember an ex mutual of mine trying to convince a minor to agree that aces can’t face corrective rape. And based on how aggressive it got with me when I tried to avoid giving an opinion on the matter, I can’t imagine that it would’ve reacted better to the minor refusing to give an opinion or to the minor outright disagreed. Refusing to put these standards on exclus and their allies is both hypocritical and quite frankly very transparent. The claims about them glorifying dark topics on AO3 through their fics also seems unfortunately legit. I mean those asks of shaming people who ask their viewers to not romanticize or glorify abusive relationships in their works is very damning. I’m very disappointed to see that Connie has taken being an inclus to the point of validating antis anti culture wholeheartedly. I can’t think of much more to add to my opinion on that part of the callout. As for the issue of Connie interacting with pro shippers in the past, I do know that this claim is legit. I’ve seen it before and so has Breeze. This was why for a brief time we decided to stop following their blogs. Because it was triggering to have pro shippers put on our dash. And sometimes we just don’t feel it’s worth it to always let people we’re platforming know they’re rbing triggering stuff. So sometimes we just quietly unfollow and choose to not interact until we’re sure they’re filtering what they do and don’t rb in some way. I definitely don’t agree with that behavior. And if they’re still doing that I”ll deplatform again. “The anon asks: “A weird question but do you know any other stimboard blogs with your follow criteria? (No radfems, racists, fandom antis, etc.) I was hoping to find more through your “similar blogs” but a lot have no anti-antis for their DNI or allow truscum/transmeds and exclus. :(“

The user responds: “I know of @turtle-pond-stims, @outofangband, and @kinaesthetics! 🍂🍄" “[ID: A cropped screenshot of an ask sent by Connie from their now-deactivated blog, butch-with-a-tortoise.

Connie says: “hey anon I have safe stim blogs. dm me if you want them. And radfems/bigots aren’t allowed to interact. For my own safety (because the community is honestly terrifying) I can’t publicly say on my blogs that I’m safe for proshippers/kinky people but I try to spread word how I can.”] [ID: Screenshot of a post by evilwriter37, which reads, “I’ve been seeing posts about fandom police leaving ao3, and it’s like: Good. We don’t want you here anyway. Go find your own fanfiction site.”

The post is tagged “#Fandom #AO3 #Antis #Purity Culture” and has 87 notes. It was posted on December 21st, 2020.

There is a reply from main-to-outofangband-andothers saying: “there are Silm antis on that site who are against Russigon (Maedhros and Fingon) not because they’re cousins but because they’re both male (coded)”] [ID: A screenshot of an anonymous (though signed off as being from outofangband) ask sent to evilwriter37, which says, “Melkor and Viggo solidarity is ‘Look there’s nothing wrong with keeping my enemy chained up in my personal chambers at all times so please just focus on the war efforts and I’ll focus on the boy* in my chambers’ -@outofbangand.

*boy used figuratively @ antis”

The user responds: “Pfft!!! Hahaha! You’re absolutely right! (And Viggo does refer to Hiccup in canon as ‘my boy’).”] I can’t really say anything to refute this. Because these are all posts of Connie outright stating that they disagree with antis. And not only sympathize with anti antis but are fully against antis. Looks like very damning evidence. Although ngl I’m not entirely against kinky blogs as a whole? Just so long as they truly stay in their lane with their kink content. And don’t force it on others in any way. Or shame people who are triggered by their kinks. It is true that being entirely against kinky blogs no matter what is dipping your toes into swerf rhetoric. Tbh I’m not going to look at the rest. This is pretty much all I need to make a decision on whether or not I”ll continue platforming Connie. Though I will try to get some more  perspective from people who I interact with as well. Because I feel better about making a more definitive decision after doing that. Also in general please don’t not try to get an opinion from me on how I feel about syscourse. A lot of the claims about Connie’s age weirdness and them using their alters as a shield feel like syscourse to me. Especially if this callout was written by one or several singlets. Singlets should never be trying to judge how legit someone’s system is ever. Even if their system friends encourage them to. You can call out a horrible person with a system without trying to insinuate that they’re lying about their alters in some way. Doing otherwise is ableist ESPECIALLY if you’re a singlet. Also in general the reason I stay out of discussions of judging how someone is handling their systems is because it’s syscourse and syscourse is triggering for my system and I. If this post was an attempt to get me to give an opinion  on the validity of Connie’s system I don’t appreciate it. And I would appreciate not being dragged into such matters again, thank you.

In general there’s like a few parts of this callout that feel legit. Which is unfortunately cluttered with obvious bias and obsessive hatred of Connie. I’m not here to stan or coddle Connie. I know they are not a perfect person. Especially since no human being in the world is perfect. But I feel the way this callout was created was very sloppy since a lot of the evidence was messy at best. And some points were very hypocritical as well as there being some no true scotsman moments from OP. In acting like exclus never do any of the thing that they tried to call out Connie for. Which is behavior that I am not a fan of. This is why people need to be more careful about callouts and like make roughdrafts and have a more unbiased person helping them if they don’t feel they can do it on their own. I’m even trying to make a resolve to do better at that myself. So it’s not like I’m unwilling to put my money where my mouth is. Anyways those are all my thoughts on this messy callout. And tbh I’m not going to get too much more heavily involved in this. Because I need to focus on more immediately serious rl stuff more often, like doing what I can to get out of the hellish landscape of a house I currently am stuck in.

[gynoidgearhead]

I feel old.

At the risk of confirming that I have finally shriveled up into a moldy crouton who represents an impediment to progress: It’s absolutely freaking me out to realize I’m going to have to navigate a version of the LGBTQIA community and discourse where there are people involved who are young enough to have completely missed a lot of the things that inform my positions about transgender issues. (Context here if you want it.)

I privately rolled my eyes at Natalie Wynn (of ContraPoints) for saying on Twitter that she sympathized more with “old school transsexuals” than trans women younger than herself, because she felt excluded when people were explicitly asking for pronouns instead of attempting to gender her correctly without asking. That was, I thought, ridiculous - gendering somebody correctly at a glance is a minefield, especially once you start to factor in nonbinary people; and accommodating people who couldn’t fit under that paradigm was, I thought (and still think), worth giving up a little hit of personal gender euphoria and vanity-stroking.

But... fuck. She’s only five years older than me. I am older now than I was when I started this blog by a wider margin. I’m a whole-ass decade older than some of the people dipping their feet into The Discourse on this site.

And today, I finally learned what Wynn meant on a more visceral and complete level, and I’ve felt it. I have stared into the void, and the void has stared back.

And I hate myself for it, because I know that it means I am now a Problem.

There are trans kids alive today whose first exposure to the idea of transgender people wasn’t through crass jokes. This is a good thing.

There are trans kids alive today who didn’t have to watch (or hear about) trans women getting dragged out onto Jerry Springer, to be publicly humiliated and sometimes even embroiled into physical fights. This is a good thing.

There are trans kids alive today who grew up with a more holistic and inclusive version of the internet, who have had access to information about transgender-related topics without having to go to dodgy websites. This is a good thing.

There are trans kids today for whom positive transgender role models have been present on television since they were pre-teens. This is a good thing.

There are trans kids alive today who had immediately supportive parents and who even may have begun transition before puberty. This is a good thing!

I am none of those things. That makes me sad, but I never thought of any of those things as alienating me from younger people. Today I finally found the one that I think does, and I don’t know how to deal:

There are trans kids alive today who have had access to online trans communities since they were old enough to go on the internet, and have thus been subjected to the griping of older trans women and transfem people about the ways public opinion and the media used to vilify trans women and transfem people specifically (before trans men were even on the media’s radar, really), but who missed the entire cultural backdrop from which that griping was born in the first place. This is... I don’t know, just a thing that has happened.

On one hand, the trauma that older trans people have had to live through is absolutely real. Past events are absolutely real, and there are things that younger people can and should learn from history. I know my understanding of queer culture has been deeply enriched by learning about the history of the movement. If I have things to say about my lived experiences, why shouldn’t I?

On the other... how long are communities really obligated to support backwards compatibility? At what point are older queer people like me just making our trauma into the next generation’s problem? I can’t even begin to count the number of times I thought to myself about an older queer person, “please just move on and accept that things are different now, that this is the cost of progress”. I thought that about people as young as Natalie Wynn. I’ve thought that about a lot of people I’ve run into on this site. Was I wrong to think that about them, or are younger people right to think that about me?

This post brought to you by the word “transandrophobia”.

I initially rolled my eyes at hearing that coinage: “‘Transmisogyny’ exists to describe the intersection of misogyny and transphobia,” I thought to myself. “The term ‘transandrophobia’ posits the idea of misandry as a dominant cultural force,” I thought to myself. (”They even missed the opportunity to just call it ‘transmisandry’,” I thought to myself.)

“‘Transmisogyny’ exists because trans women and transfem people have unique problems to deal with, and those problems just aren’t applicable to trans men and transmasc people and don’t even really have counterparts,” I thought to myself, not accounting for the possibility that the situation could have changed, that those problems that were breathtakingly obvious to me might mostly be footnotes today (I’m still not convinced that that’s the case, but I at least owed it to other people to stop and consider the possibility), and that new problems might have developed that need to be talked about, which means sometimes new language is needed.

So I learned something today. I’m not sure if I like what it says about me, and it makes me feel closer than ever to irrelevance and the dustbin of history, but I have to suck that up and deal with it like the adult that I am. I owe humility to future generations. I’ll be damned if I turn into the old coot who spends too much time scolding people who are mercifully young enough not to have felt the same wounds I did, let alone to the point of inflicting them myself.

[jasperunbound]

I received a few anonymous messages last night... I suppose I should have seen this coming eventually... I'm not going to respond to any of those messages directly, because I don't want to expose my followers, many of whom are trans, to what they have said. Not worth reading, trust me on that. I will say to you, anon, someone who uses the shield of "I'm queer" as though that makes your words less fallible-- why are you sending me your transmisogynistic and ignorant horseshit? It's obvious you haven't done any research into how trans women are viewed in Japan whatsoever, and you can't even do the basic thing of properly reading what I've said in my posts, otherwise you'd know I never once claimed the localization team "did it on purpose". Since you apparently have difficulty reading, I’ll underline what I wrote to make it easier for you:

Do you really think translation teams are infallible? Do you think the original Japanese writers are infallible?  How much "work and care" the translators put into the game as a whole is utterly irrelevant to the topic-- that includes whether or not they are “queerphobic meanies”, as you put it. But really, the issue is not “queerphobia”, it’s “transphobia”, specifically “transmisogyny”.

Don’t send trans people your “opinions” of trans issues if you can’t bother doing any of the research. Not sure why you’re acting like I’m ruining the game for you.

[nbian-moved]

It's not transfems' fault that you twist our words in order to demonize us instead of listening to us. He was specifically talking about transmasculinity as a whole, you're the one who keeps trying to make it about lesbianism specifically so that you'll have something to use against him for having the audacity to speak to you. Do you not think your aggressive, accusatory response to transfems simply speaking to you on something they can speak on shows transmisogyny?

... but the post was about lesbianism specifically. also, i’m not angry that he spoke to me. it’s that he, as a transfeminine person, doesn’t have a place to speak on the experiences of transmasculine lesbians. transmasculine lesbians have very different experiences than other transmasculine people. and i would have spoken the same to literally anyone else. just because i disagreed with someone who is transfeminine on something that had nothing to do with their personal identity does not mean i am transmisogynist, no. i would have spoken the same way to him regardless of whether he was transfeminine or not. also, i never twisted his words. i was not angry about him ‘simply speaking to me’, i was angry about him criticizing my identity, misgendering me, and speaking on a topic entirely irrelevant to him, someone who is not a transmasculine person nor a lesbian.

[zekhromss]

ive got some Opinions and i dont wanna get myself mad 4 separate times to make separate posts so like heres a masterpost of everything ive made myself mad about in the past 20 minutes.

-im so fucking tired of transmisogyny and like actually transphobia in general but whatever it sucks that like every piece of media has some form of it and its like its 2019 how is the joke “man in dress think he woooomahn” not tired like how do people keep greenlighting it.  its stupid and ugly and i hate it i hate it so fucking much like can you get better jokes i wish there were a point in time where theres a collective Woke Millennial Hivemind that fucking massacres unfunny ass transmisogynists.  every time i have to cringe through a “excuse me did you call me sir” “oh apologies maam are you gonna get the Surgerie done” in a normal human context i die on the inside and also explode

-i think it should be illegal to force organized religion on your kids (but like in a non-religious persecution way like not in real life illegal i just wish it never existed) and in fact if kids are sheltered from shit that doesnt hurt them like homosexuality and scientific studies on the world around them i think they should be sheltered from religion.  religion causes a fuckton of mental and developmental disorders (typically emotional and psychiatric) that are damn near fucking impossible to recover from because youre always gonna be afraid of god or hell or whatever the fuck.  like not even in a christianity sense (theyre typically the worst about this and i say this from personal experience but like, idk, ive seen it from things like....not christianity....) i really truly believe religion should be kept from children until they can develop their own personalities and states of being because basing ur life around a pre-existing moral code of What Makes You Good is harmful and in most cases kids wind up wilding out and putting themselves in danger because they feel trapped and constantly under the watchful eye of karma or god or whatever.  like i really cannot think of a single religion where the basis is “just chill and promise to be cool” without some kind of punishment existing whether it’s “you’ll have to pay for this in your next life or in future interactions” and i think it’s just reaaaalllllyyyyy harmful for kids to experience like i dont think it teaches responsibility i think it teaches fear of mistakes because regardless of how merciful you as an adult think your god is, kids will not think like that.  like idk.  im sure theres good religions that handle this better but speaking from my standpoint i never found a religion that made me feel safe and Human until i got older.  even now that im like a buddhist im still like “yeah but what if this religion based in being cool and kind winds up fucking me over because karma doesnt think im the same person i think i am”.  idk im like traumatized from christianity tho so this isnt a good opinion for other religions so i guess this is about christianity sorry guys im not deleting this whole paragraph though.

-i think relationships in media need to fucking get away from “crazy insane medical professional who tortures people”.  i dont think i need to write an essay on this.  i dont understand why people keep making this archetype when it usually winds up being thinly veiled fetish torture porn for the first person this particular character interacts with and doesnt kill.  like maybe its okay for strictly horror films but i really cannot wrap my head around why people keep using this trope, it’s lazy and uninspired and feels like the biggest cop-out of a character.  like, you can make someone with baseline similar characterization but to put them in a place of forged authority to do whatever is just uh.....lazy....and it winds up being really gross really quick.  this isnt strictly abt cicciolata or w/e his fucking name is but hes the first character beyond like idk jigsaw that i can think of so this is all his fault now.  fuck you you stupid ugly bitch.  be in a horror movie if you want to act like this.  god.  it is like better than Doctor Man With Psychosisisisissis!!!!!!!11111!  because at least theyre being ugly as fuck on their own but ohhh mannnnnn you guys went to like.  editors and whatever and they thought it was a good idea?  we have to destroy all media and start over because these new archetypes SUCK.

-this kinda goes with my christianity rant but like i think....like i wish some form of black mirror existed where kids were independent from their parents personal opinions and there was like a thing that you could see when you were a kid that says “THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE THIS IS AN OPINION” when ur parents say some dumb racist/phobic shit because like literally parents are socially-acceptably brainwashing their children into having the same ugly ass outdated opinions and it fucking sucks.  i dont think kids should have to listen to their parents opinions i wish there was a cool fucking Opinion Free Zone where nobody can tell you a religion is wrong or a race or identity is wrong because fucking yikes.

-also i wish every employer was like lgbt friendly and not “at will”??? idk how its 2019 and we still have fucking people getting fired for zero reason other than theyre not cishet and their boss like has some irrelevant problem like theyre a cheap fucking asshole who doesnt want to pay them like i wish every employee had a Book of Rights thats non-negotiable and if you as an employer overstep those rights you get murdered like im being for real like if youre a fucking piece of shit i want you dead why would you exist in a capitalist state where you have to have a fucking job to live and then fire someone for a reason that isnt real.  fuck.

[genderanarchism-blog]

Learning to love your dick: Overcoming genital dysphoria as a transgender woman

     Living life as a queer trans woman, nothing is politicized and sensationalized more than my dick. I hear how having a dick makes you a man in every debate or joke; I see reveals of a penis on women framed as  “horrific and disgusting” in dramas and horror films. I am assigned male at birth by the sole factor of having a dick. It should be no surprise that I deal with a vast amount of internalized transmisogyny and dysphoria surrounding my genitals as a product from all these violent ideas and depictions. I should not feel the shame society programs into me about my dick, and I should find pride in my transness. Not only as a survival technique but as radical self love and acceptance of who I am and my struggle as a trans woman.

I am going to dispel this masculine connotation associated with my dick and describe my experiences with dysphoria and how I imagine we can reframe our genitals as feminine.

How cissexism in media fills me with shame and dysphoria

     In order to deconstruct the negative male connotations of my penis, it is important to explore how we are depicted in media. One of the worst depictions I have ever seen, was the ending of the 1983 slasher, Sleepaway Camp. If you have not seen this movie, the ending involves the protagonists seeing the killer, a boy who they previously thought was a girl, standing naked dropping a severed head. After panning across a dick between the killers legs, one of the protagonists says, “How can it be? God, she’s a boy.” A perceived woman with a penis is obviously more disturbing than watching your fellow campers severed head roll upon the ground!

     After seeing this scene, I admit to having a flashback to it, the imagery, quote, and the inhuman groaning the transgender killer is making, when I was taking off my pants to shower. I had internalized the shock and horror of the main character in regards to my own body. I saw my dick as something horrific, something that made me a boy. This is how damaging this portrayal in media can be. It can be so strong that it leads trans women like myself to view their own bodies as terror inducing, something that is used to unsettle “normal” people. This trope involving the revealing of the penis, affects how I feel when revealing my own transness when dating. Due to such a strong colloquial connection between penis reveals and trans women, I feel like I am whipping a dick out everytime I tell a potential date I am transgender. Using the chick with a dick reveal is not the only way the media harms transwomen, the lack of any representation can be harmful as well.

     Cisgender romances dominate the media to the point where the only trans representation is used for shock value, tragedy, or at the least a plot device. How am I supposed to feel about the sex I am able to have, with my own genitals, when all the sexuality and romance I see in movies and tv is based around women who have vaginas? Typical sex scenes in movies involve a man lifting a woman onto a counter or against a wall or tossing upon a bed and fucking them at angles only achievable with a vagina. As a woman with a boyfriend, how should I feel when he cannot just fuck me on a countertop, or slide between my legs when we fuck? If this is the only model I see, I am going to feel inadequate and unable to fulfill my role as a sexual woman. Seeing and hearing about vaginal sex as natural and normal way to have sex in media, leaves me feeling as an outsider or not a true woman for being unable to participate in these acts. Everytime I have to douche before bottoming in sex, I get to deal with this imagery internalized. The fact that I have a penis and therefore cannot have sex with my boyfriend the way I see cis people constantly have it.

     Due to the dick reveal trope and lack of trans representation in media, it is assumed I would want to emulate women and hide my own transness. If I were to chop off my dick I could be a “real” woman, or atleast could avoid being “found out.” I could have sex like a “real” woman. These are the cissexist ideas pounded into my head and dominate the discourse surrounding my penis.

So are you cutting it off?

     “Are you keeping it?” This was the question I receive by nearly everyone in my life, and in every variation, when I had first come out as a woman. If I were to reject my male identity, surely I would have to reject all aspects of it. Including, the most masculine and phallic of them all, my penis. Back when I used to dignify this absurd invasion of privacy, they were shocked when I would tell them I was keeping it.  

     First, I would frame this in a joking manner of, “Of course I wouldn’t cut my dick off dude.” But slowly as the hormones took hold of my body, I began to get genital dysphoria. I was unable to continue to have something exist on my body that was masculine. I had two choices left to me: Cut the damn thing off, or reframe it in my mind as feminine.

Reframing our dicks as feminine rather than masculine

     The penis does not have to be the pivotal symbol of masculinity. As a woman; my hands are a woman’s, my legs are a woman’s, my breasts are a woman’s. So why can’t my penis follow this same line of thought? I am a woman, so all my parts are that of a woman. Its very appearance and functionality has been altered by hormones just as much as the rest of me. Although hormones are not necessary for the penis to be feminine, mine was still medically transitioning along with me.  

     Now thinking of this conceptually is all well and good, but does not tame the raging demon that is dysphoria. I could be told all parts of me were a woman's, but I would still see the man in various features, especially the one feature that was considered most male. So this simple thought change was not enough.

     To break the language connection, when I still associated just the word dick with my maleness, I could rename her. Girldick, enlarged clit, or even jokingly, my prolapsed vagina. These were all terms I would use half jokingly, half seriously, to start to break that toxic language connection, so I could create a space where I could break the other connections. Just from this label change, I was able to start to see my dick as something other than just a man's. I began to be able to explore multiple ways of using it, functionally and sexually.

Sex and Pissing

     My girldick was always used sitting when I had to piss. This was out of what I thought would respect women’s spaces at the time, and for my own dysphoria. I found once I was able to start re-framing one aspect of my dick, its labeling, I could re-examine how I see other actions. In my own home, or even drunk outside, I began being able to piss standing out of convenience and without dysphoria. This became not a man’s actions, but just a fancy way I could pee as a girl. I began to joke about this being an advantage over cis women; as a way of punching up at TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.) Now, my dick was not just a negative aspect, but also had some advantages. The hardest thing to overcome, pun intended, was my dysphoria over using it sexually.

     This genital dysphoria was something I wasn’t able to overcome completely alone. However, one part I was able to conquer alone was using it in other ways than conventional. I would use vibrating toys or hold it against my body to rub as a clit. These two methods were able to let me ignore the fact that I was using a penis, and instead focus on the pleasure I should feel as a woman. They also led to me using the term, “I’m wet,” rather than “I’m hard,” because hardness was irrelevant in these methods and hormones had made my penis secrete like a vagina does.

     My partner was the changing force for my dysphoria with penetration. I was able to penetrate previously, but would always have to ignore portions of the act and/or disassociate slightly to get the job done. It took my partner having sex with me in way that validated my womanhood, celebrated my transness, and was able to work with my penis in ways dysphoria wouldn’t let me fully enjoy. They would be able to top me in modified positions that made me feel like I was taking rather then giving. I was the pentrater, but I was still in the positions I saw women in in cissexist media. Something I had always thought was unachievable for myself. This complete acceptance of my femininity, despite my penis, afforded me a safe place to explore my sexuality.

     I began being able to take more dominant or conventionally masculine positions without receiving dysphoria. By my partner seeing me as fully myself, I could re-frame these sex acts, I previously perceived as male, in a feminine light. This was the final step in my full acceptance of my dick as feminine and loving that part of myself.

     I could be seen as a woman, call my dick a clit, and fuck in ways that cissexists would consider male. I could take off my pants without the shame or disgust I was programmed to feel by the genital reveal trope. I could piss standing up, and penetrate a partner. Though, I still struggle with physical dysphoria and internalized transphobia, I am finally learning to love my dick.

by: Erith Margolis