#transmisogny cw

[fafefae]

tf they gonna call themselves "the queerest place on the internet" when they doing this shit LMFAOOOOO.

thought they needed a little reminder that they still have far more to lose if they double down on this stupidity. spread the word, it seems they're... very forgetful about this.

[frontierpsychoanalyst]

[elvenmoans]

My dad is proof you can be supportive of transmasc people but still a transmisogynist because he's changed my pronouns (to he and then to they) twice but still calls my little they/she using sister "he" after a year and gets defensive saying that he's "known -name- all his (🤢) life and that makes it difficult"

As if I haven't known them my entire life and have no issue. As if dad hasn't been able to switch my pronouns. As if he isn't the ONLY person I have EVER met who still misgenders a trans person after a year who didn't have active burning hate in their heart.

He hasn't realized my sister has gone no contact yet and thinks they're just pouting. The last couple of times they've attempted to talk to my dad, dad said he's trying (gets the right pronouns maybe 20% of the time) so its not fair to be angry at him about it, and then his wife sends long angry texts at my sister saying this is "not a house of hate," and that they're "supportive". She even has the extreme gall to ask sister to stop upsetting dad.

IT'S BEEN OVER A FUCKING YEAR IF YOU CARED YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT. YOU ONY STRUGGLE WITH TRANS WOMEN YOU'RE A FUCKING BIGOT WHO DOESN'T DESERVE YOUR KID

Also dad is extremely eggy so it might be projection. But expressing jealousy before being transmisogynistic doesn't cancel out the harm

He deserves to never see my sister again. I fully support their no contact. I've told my dad repeatedly what he has to do if he wants a relationship with my sister and each time he been a whiny piss baby about how he is "supportive" and "trying"

I'm just

[vague-humanoid]

What happened next? Masculinization, depression, anorexia – even seizures.

Withdrawal of therapy was also associated with adverse symptoms in 60 of the 86 transsexuals. Rebound androgenization, hot flashes, moodiness, and irritability or depression were the most frequent complaints, followed by headaches, sweats, weight loss, anorexia, tiredness, feeling “ill,” paresthesias, seizure, constipation/diarrhea, and skin changes. Androgenization evidenced by return of penile erections and progressive return of male body hair pattern usually occurred after several weeks of sustained therapy withdrawal.

[gor3sigil]

Yo, I saw your post about trans dudes not gendering hobbies and I want to cosign it real hard

I'm a cis dude (or whatever... wrote that long ask the other day, so you see the whatever). I do stuff like wood carving... at some point I'd like to get into blacksmithing (and a million other things)

Are those masculine hobbies? What a weird thing to even ask, they're just themselves

Carving is carving, everyone should do it

I also want to pick up the skills to make my own clothes some day. Would that be masculine if I call it tailoring or feminine if I call it sewing? It's in fact just a good skill

And I mean Doki Doki is a great game, never played it, just watched it, but what fantastic characters. Liking it isn't gendered, you're right that there's nothing wrong with you

You know, I got into MLP back in like 2011... man... people just can't... eh... no I feel you hard on how it was for you though, cause while I still really love it, I haven't watched it in years, not cause of shame or something but just cause the infinite posts on here about guys who watch it all being creeps kinda sapped my ability to enjoy it

Great show though, still recommend it, just lost my own personal ability to enjoy it other than the occasional fan art

Point is with all of this, none of it effects your gender. Shows aren't gendered, hobbies aren't gendered. Things like make up or what kinda clothes you want to wear aren't gendered

Welding, knitting a baby onesie, blue and pink, dresses or overalls... none of this has gender. Men, women, trans, cis, anyone no matter who they are, how they identify... they all belong equally in all these things... what matters is if it's a good fit for you, there's no such thing as you having to fit the right boxes for it

Easier said than done sometimes to not care what other people thing, especially if it would put you at risk; but from an internal point of view, and from how much you should value others opinions on this... do what you like, and people who don't like it can piss off

But yeah, just saw that post and wanted to weigh in

The stuff I said is true for everyone, but bring it around towards trans men in particular, there's no right way to be a trans man. You're you, you're a trans dude... job done

You get to decide what it looks like for you, but none of this stuff is gendered. You could be the most masculine guy in make up, or you could do the daintiest welding in the most feminine way, but that's just you bringing your own style to it; and just like none of these hobbies are gendered, neither is being a trans guy

Like if you're a masculine trans guy that's great, but if you're real feminine that's great too. That's stuff's just the flavoring for how you're you, none of it's what makes you a guy

I hope you have a nice day

Thank you for your input and I totally agree with everything you said !

It sucks that you can't enjoy MLP like you used to... But yeah, there's a big stigma around "masc looking" people with "fem aligned (to society's standards" hobbies and interests. Like I said in my post, I'm a huge anime fan and I've seen so many cis men get shit for being creeps because they had like their favourite female characters from an anime or manga as their phone wallpaper, or because they had figures and posters, for people it can only be for "gross, NSFW purposes" when it's just people enjoying fictional characters.

And I hate when you say that and people are like "well IF the men in fandoms weren't ALWAYS CREEPS" and it's like: you're talking about the loudest crowd, not the majority. I'm not a big fan of fandoms in general because people tend to be too intense about the media, for me at least. But that's the point of a fandom and there's good and bad in it. It's not a gender thing.

I remember watching a little video about the MLP fandom and finding some things that came out of it like the huge conventions and fanfic and overall creativity so so great !! and then the youtuber introduced the more NSFW, weird part of the fandom and said "I think that the reason why men tend to sexualized fictional characters in shows and any medias is because it's the only way they ever learned to enjoy female characters. As a girl, I can relate to the characters that are girls because they experience similar things to me, but to men, the only relatable and enjoyable thing they can possibly get out of a female character isn't the way she's written, the things she goes through, it's just the sexual gratification she can give."

And I don't have words strong enough to say how APALLED I was by this statement like, do you hear yourself, fr ?!

But anyways, there's still a long road ahead of us for people to just be normal about men liking "unconventional" things. Or to just de-gender things in general, really.

[teen-heart-throb-mr-hyde]

evil is arbitrary, or, i’m begging you all to be normal about hyde (and queerness)

so like. does anyone else think it’s weird when people conflate hyde’s actual evil with hypotheticals about his gender identity/presentation? here’s a post about that.

cw for discussion of general queerophobia and specifically transmisogny

to contextualize this post going forward, i'm going to lay down this principle: that what we consider evil is totally arbitrary.

"evil" is a concept, and like all concepts, we made it up, both as a society and as individuals. there are some things that basically everyone (individuals and society) can agree and have agreed, across time and culture, are objectively evil, like straight up murder. there are other things, however, that are morally neutral, or even good that have been deemed as "evil/morally wrong" within certain societies (which shape individuals), like queerness.

following so far? excellent.

there are two aspects to what i am reluctant to call hyde's "evil" considering the above, but keep in mind this idea of evil is filtered through two lenses: the individual (jekyll) and the society (victorian england). the two aspects are the canon/textual and the subtextual.

the canon is what we directly see on the page, and what we see on the page amounts mostly to two things: hyde's violence and cruelty towards others. when it comes down to explicit, textual evidence of hyde's evil, those are the examples we can pull from. these are also things that can, pretty objectively by many individuals and society, be considered evil. murder is bad. not really inventing the wheel here.

the subtextual is, obviously, very different. technically, it doesn't exist. the subtextual nature of hyde's "evil" is going to be different for everyone because it's what we think exists underneath the actual canon. based on textual evidence, we build a subtext that explains or expands on themes, characterization, messaging, etc. based on canon evidence in the novella, many people read in a degree of queer subtext, regarding both jekyll/hyde's gender and sexuality. jekyll is some kind of queer and has repressed that due to the heavy stigma and bigotry present during the time, and this emerges in hyde along with his other "base urges." but that doesn't actually exist in the text, it's just one reading that you can have.

hyde does some things in canon that are objectively evil (violence and cruelty) and could have done some things if you read the subtext a certain way that were arbitrarily evil, based on jekyll and the society that molded him (queerness).

so why do modern readers, modern queer readers treat these things as equally evil?

honestly? fucked if i know. but i have some theories.

this problem may be the opposite of the "sir danvers problem," which i've talked about before. while that comes from people woobifying hyde and wanting to remove any ill intent from his canon, objective evil, i think this problem comes from people wanting to put ill intent into his subtextual, arbitrary evil. with this, people lump in hyde's subtextual, arbitrary evil, specifically this reading of queerness, with his canon, objective evil and judge them as equally bad. which is just fucking not true!!!! i don't care how tired you are of people calling hyde a poor little little meow, it's a weird, poorly analyzed take.

if we take that reading of queer subtext, we can understand why jekyll and victorian society would conflate these things as equally evil, but as modern readers we don't have to. and we shouldn't! we should understand the nuance between which of jekyll/hyde's behaviours are actually evil, and which are only treated as evil. to imply that these, (again, because they're based on subtext) hypotheticals of hyde getting it on with other guys, or not adhering to binary standards of masculinity is just as bad as him killing a man in cold blood is gross, plain and simple.

it's especially sinister since i see this most often paired with the idea that hyde is in some way gnc. he's a drag queen, or a cross-dresser, or just more effeminate than jekyll, and that is supposed to make him more evil or just generally more "unpleasant." that's some straight up alfred hitchcock's psycho level transmisogny. if you want to make hyde any of those things, it should to be to question what "evil" means, who or what decides what evil is, and whether or not that is a correct judgement to make. (hint: it's not. gnc men/transfem ppl are not inherently evil. jesus.)

tldr; there's a lot going on. evil is arbitrary. some things are pretty objectively evil and hyde does those in canon, and some things are not and hyde could have done those in subtext. treating them as equally bad is weird. have all the queer readings of the text you want, just maybe interrogate why you're making those readings and how you pair them with the actual text.

[avidlylivid-reblogs]

[x]

being so fr when I say that transmisogyny has put feminism back like 50 years

[tye-wig-music]

cw murder, transmisogyny, discussion of serial killers

ultimately I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that brianna ghey’s killing was motivated more by a Leopold & Loeb-esque desire to commit a murder as the enactment of a power fantasy (the alleged killers discussed multiple potential victims before settling on Brianna) rather than principally by transmisogyny per se (although - in case you haven’t read the reports - one of the defendants referred to Brianna as “it” in whatsapp correspondence & the other seems to have been erotically fascinated by her; dehumanisation & objectification were doubtlessly factors here; I mean more that it does not seem on the face of it to have comprised any sort of first step in a genocidal programme). of course, dahmer’s victims were preponderantly gay men of colour; the yorkshire ripper’s, predominantly sex workers; it is no accident that the targets of sadistic and psychologically-motivated murders are regularly vulnerable, disempowered members of marginalised groups. this trial is in its infancy and further facts may come out, but for the moment it seems that the transmisogny implicit in this horrific act of violence was indeed largely implicit; her killers may have had an easier time committing her murder because of her trans identity, but were not apparently motivated specifically by it. Which I did find surprising, but perhaps should not have.

[beeelderly]

Stop tagging your man worshipping and men’s rights activist posts as lesbian

ok literally 1 , where the hell did i tag something as lesbian bc i hardly maintag anything on this mess of a blog, and 2 , get ur terf ass off my blog its so easy to just block me an move on. im not gonna say sorry for loving people with complex genders and calling myself a lesbian bc i think thats whats beautiful about being a lesbian!!! i hope u meet someone in real life that has the patience to help you understand this bc u aren't clearly going to learn it from me

[everygrayfullbuster]

The power of found family saves the day once again!

[ceooflamp]

Okay so I'm seeing a rise of a very particular type of posting lead by TMEs that's really getting under my skin and i want to address it. I am TME myself so i can't speak for people affected by transmisogyny, but I feel like i should say SOMETHING at the very fucking least.

Okay so i keep seeing a term called "Transandrophobia" thrown around and i guess it seems inconspicuous (it really isn't though), but then it's usually always paired with "transmisandry" which literally doesn't fucking exist for one, but for two it insinuates that TMAs are oppressors of TMEs which is not the case.

Discussing the demonization of masculinity and perceived masculinity or misogyny they experience is something that many of these TMEs focus on too, but they do it in a way that completely leaves TMAs out of the discussion despite TMAs being specifically effected by BOTH of these things.

I don't want any transfems to get harassed from this post, so I'm making sure names are not mentioned. I will however not blur out the blog who made the post. At this point i know you all don't really go out of your way to harass TMEs in these situations also this person is very much a perpetrator of transmisogyny so I don't feel the need to.

[ID: Tumblr user transgentleman-luke says "So are we ready to talk about transandrophobia being encouraged by big-name transfeminine authors yet? Censored name's latest essay was pretty decent- until she decided to include the hashtag #NotAllTransGuys in one of her paragraphs, in which she insinuates that trans men speaking about their experiences with misogyny are being transmisogynistic by… speaking about what we have faced." There is a screenshot of the transfem's article it reads "understandable (if infuriating) that some trans male/masculine people may play up their female socializations and the misogyny they've experienced in the past in order to cast themselves as victims of the patriarchy, without realizing that this particular framing insinuates that trans female/feminine people are the patriarchy" End ID]

I'm not going to spend the rest of the post using screenshots of what he (the Tumblr user) said because he goes on for the whole post focusing on this one paragraph because this transfem author didn't word some things right. But literally all the author is pointing out is that TMEs often use what misogyny they have and do experience to completely disregard transmisogyny or act as though they are just as effected as TMAs by misogyny which is very much not the case. And to top it, yes TMEs do insinuate that TMAs are the patriarchy just because TMEs are effected by patriarchy too. The term transmisandry being used alongside transandrophobia makes that very fucking evident, because misandry is women holding power over men, and therefore this frames TMAs as the oppressors. And so does transandrophobia.