#transphobia effects all trans people. not just the ones youre aiming it at

[bluebeetle]

revealing that the nashville shooter is supposedly transgender, without revealing what gender they id as or any other information other than that, being a former student, and a name... absolutely evil, because it allows people to construct their own narratives and this is going to mean so many awful people blaming the entire trans community (and assuming the shooter is a trans woman bc transmisogyny)

(edit: i wrote this rly early in the morning when reading the news, see tags and notes for more thoughts ig cuz im making this unrebloggable bc transphobes r annoying)

[thinkhappythxughts]

https://www.tumblr.com/thinkhappythxughts/715679906573484032/tw-transphobia-the-terfs-trying-to-screen?source=share

hi there! sorry, this is sort of a weird ask — feel free to ignore.

i’m just a queer trans person who’s wanted to transition for years but my family is not really on board with it. i was really hoping to go to uni and transition there, and Edinburgh is one of the places I’ve been aiming to apply to. except… the city seems so transphobic?^ as someone who seems to have been there/knows a bit abt the uni, i was wondering if you wouldn’t mind talking about the city a little bit, in regards to this, if you would up to it? weirdly enough i do know lots of people who live there, i just don’t know them well enough to ask stuff like this dhjgfdjfb

hi there anon!

so firstly, full disclosure that I haven't lived in Edinburgh for about a year now, but my sister still does so I visit all the time. Generally, I think the city is a great place to live if you're trans, or queer in general. There's a great queer scene with clubs and sober spaces, Edinburgh pride is great, Portobello (Porty) pride is well worth a visit and only a bus from the city centre, Glasgow pride is also great if you can get the train across. Events like the terf screening are absolutely an outlier, stuff like that is gonna happen in big cities just due to numbers - it is the capital of Scotland after all. Occasionally there are random terf stickers on lampposts, but i've seen at least twice as many pro-trans stickers about. In regards to that screening, the number of people who turned out to protest far outnumbered the people actually there to see the stupid film, and the protest was supported by the uni's staff pride network (i know because my sister was there on their behalf as an organiser/first-aider hah)

on that note, i think edinburgh uni is also pretty good for trans stuff - I wasn't out as trans yet when i was at uni, but I had friends who were trans and they didn't seem to have any issues on the uni/admin side of things. The uni has a pretty good student pride society, and as i mentioned, there's a staff pride network, so there's a solid bunch of staff who would be in your corner if you did have any issues. The uni's student support in general is okay - the general standard for that stuff honestly isn't great in the UK, and I wouldn't say edinburgh's is amazing, but they did help me out a couple of times (with non-lgbt stuff).

you'll probably know more about me than the applications process for uni in regards to chosen name etc, and it depends if you're applying through UCAS (in the UK) or if you're abroad, so i'll leave you to more knowledgeable people on that. I would say that if you apply in your chosen name, any post you receive about applications will be in the name you apply with, so keep that in mind if the people you live with aren't supportive - terribly sorry that you're in that situation, by the way. It really does get better once you're away from them.

in regards to transition, if you're wanting to be referred to a GIC, you'll likely be referred to Chalmers centre, which seems to have a waiting time of about 2 years currently - that sounds like a lot but from what i can gather, that's quite a lot lower than most places in the UK (i'm in NE england and my nearest centre isn't even taking referrals because their waiting list is 6+years long 😭). Once you're registered with a GP you should be able to ask them about a referral and they can give you more info.

overall I think that Scotland is probably just a better place to live if you're trans in the UK - scottish parliament supported self-ID (i'm actually unsure if this has come into effect yet, need to do some googling) and if they weren't under the UK gov, they were going introduce legal third gender options too. The SNP and scottish parliamentary partiers absolutely have some outspoken transphobes, but they're much more of an outlier than in westminster, so generally i think the outlook for trans people is just way more positive in Scotland - I'm certainly planning to move back there as soon as the circumstances line up for me. It's pretty scary everywhere in the UK right now in terms of policy (and general attitude, to an extent) but yeah i think overall Edinburgh and Scotland in general are your best bet.

If you have any more questions or anything i'm happy to chat! Absolute best of luck to you, no matter where you end up, both with your transition and uni in general 💜

[unholyglitch404]

I wholeheartedly believe that transphobia is child abuse or neglect... But not for the reasons you think.

It's not about the misgendering. It doesn't help anything, to be fair, but what it's really about is what transphobia does, and stands for, in practice.

Everybody sees the same person differently. Effectively, the mental image that you have of a person isn't really them, it's an interpretation of them, based on what you see and hear, mixed with how you see the world. This isn't a bad thing, it's just a fact of life. Nobody knows everything about somebody else. Most of the time, it isn't much of an issue. If something unexpected appears, you adapt your interpretation of the person to match, so it remains accurate and doesn't cause problems. However, when you add transphobia to the mix, it results in people grasping onto this interpretation and trying to replace their child with it.

As a trans person, in an unsupportive environment, this is genuinely how it feels. My mother doesn't see me, she sees an imaginary daughter. She doesn't care for me, she cares for an imaginary daughter. She's willing to make me miserable, if that means her imaginary daughter can continue living. Niko and "Angelica" aren't the same person. Not anymore. Angelica is a replacement.

The issue with transphobia in parenting is that it's never about treating your child as autonomous person, with their own needs. It never includes listening to your child, and treating their input and reasons for thinking this way as valuable. No. It's always about shutting them down. It's about forcing them to conforming with your mental image. And, it hurts your child. You may be trying to do the right thing. You may be doing it out of concern, but that's the core of the issue.

My mom, for example. I have a nickname for her, that I'll sometimes use. This nickname is "Kongpa", based on the Chinese word "恐怕", which can be used, in a sentence, to mean "I'm worried that". Especially in "if/then" statements. This is her nickname because that statement has defined our relationship, in my head. She cares. But... In practice, it doesn't feel like it's about me. Because it's always her fears, her feelings, her thoughts. Her fear is that me being trans will, inevitably, result in my transitioning, which will result in me killing myself out of regret.

Me and Mom have had many arguments about me being trans. Especially for that first year after I first came out, when I was fourteen. These arguments have never been about understanding each other, our point of views, and figuring out a way to move forward, while addressing both of our concerns. No, it's always her, and my stepdad, trying to argue my transness out of me. Trying to beat me with "I'm worried that..." until I feel too guilty to continue.

This is where the imaginary daughter comes into play. I am an autonomous person, with my own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and needs. I might be their offspring, but I am still allotted the right to a conversation about my own issues. Not an argument, a conversation where we're all equals. If this was about me, then we should be able to have this conversation. Sit down, without yelling or verbally beating down the other (it's always me being beaten down, because I always end up crying, but shush), and understand each other. I like to think I understand Mom, and my stepdad. They want what's right... But you can't figure out what's right without communication, and every time I've tried to start this conversation, it's always ended with an argument that they're aiming to win. This isn't a conversation where you can win, because then it'll go nowhere. You cannot find the best course of action by winning an argument. Not when it comes to social things, like this. Winning an argument like this is just shutting the other person down.

At the end of all of these arguments, I'm always in tears. The closest I've ever gotten to suicide was after one of these. I had a weapon, and everything. The only reason it didn't result into an actual attempt was because I realized I was scared. I was scared of dying. The unknown that follows it. I was scared of living. If I survived the attempt, I knew I'd be in physical, mental, and financial pain. It wasn't "She wants the best for me", or "People care for me"... It was fear. When I needed somebody, nobody was there, because the only people who could have been there, wanted to win an argument. They didn't want to find the best course of action, they wanted me to shut up and go back to being their daughter. Why else would it have descended into an argument to win? I was never an individual to work with, I was a responsibility to fix. And that hurt. It still defines how I see them.

This severely damaged our relationship. At this point, I can't be around them that long. The only thing I have to keep looking forward to is the fact I only have a year until I can move out. A year, then I can move in with my supportive father, and go to college. Start my life, not Angelica's.

I believe that transphobia is child neglect, or abuse. Or.. at least, it causes it. I'm not saying "arrest all transphobes with kids", but I am saying that, if you actually care for your child, you have to actually listen to them. Transphobia is toxic, because it has no positive effect on your child. Even if they end up not being trans, and their transition ends up being a mistake, you still drove them away. You told them that, when push comes to shove, you are unwilling to listen, change your perspective, or treat them as an autonomous person. There are alternatives, even if you don't "agree" that your child is trans. Because, by denying and dismissing them, vehemently misgendering them, you can, not only, be negatively impacting their mental health, and driving them away, but also closing any and all doors for conversation, or teaching life skills. You need to communicate with them. You can't make decisions for them. Especially not as they get older.

Take the time to, calmly, sit down and listen to their input, experiences, and why they think the way they do. When it's your turn, you can voice your concerns, listen to your child, and try meeting in the middle. If you're concerned about "irreversible damage" and medical transition, then just see if you can stick to social transition for a few years. Test it out. It's just name (no legal alterations to anything, yet), pronouns, terms, and clothes. Nothing that's going to cause irreversible damage. If they're not trans, then living as another gender is going to be uncomfortable. If they blossom, then that's a pretty good sign. You can talk about transitioning further when it's (a) legally possible, to begin with, (b) when you're child asks for it, and/or (c) when you and your child are sure it's best, with valuable input from both sides. And you have to realize that, sometimes, you have to put away your concerns, and let your child figure things out.

A child is a human being. An individual with their own needs and wants. If you cannot compromise, meet in the middle, communicate, hold their input as valuable, especially as they age... Then you weren't mature enough for this responsibility. These are basic life skills. By refusing to work on these, if you currently have children, then you're also missing out on teaching your child these, and making their adult life harder. I promise, your child will have bullies, and you don't need to be one of them. There are better alternatives to deal with your concerns.

[goopgirlie813]

Thanks! I'll try to read through that this weekend.

The "cotton ceiling" thing about it being prejudiced to not have sex with trans women was a grossly misunderstood criticism of transphobia in lesbian spaces, if I remember correctly. I did some research into it about a year ago and I wish I had saved those articles to have on hand because I can't find them now. I'm not gonna try to argue about that right now when I don't have sources on hand but quite frankly I think its bullshit.

Tesching kids about lgbt stuff in school is aimed at reducing prejudice and self image issues associated with not understanding what is "wrong" with you (something I persoanlly experienced before descovering the queer community). Not allowing parents to opt them out is controversial, yes, but I and many others would argue that parents should not have the authority to completely deny their child access to information because that is a human person who should have a right to understand the world around them, not a doll you get to craft into your idea of a "perfect human." I think that level of complete control over another person's life and worldview should be considered abuse, no matter how young the person is. But again, I don't really want to get into a back and forth about that because I know from experiece that it never goes anywhere worth putting energy into. I'm really not in the mood to get called slurs today so I'm not pushing it.

I can see that we are clearly not going to see eye to eye on queer issues. I just cannot get behind what you are saying here. I'll say this in the most polite way I know how to; from my perspective it appears that you have internalized a lot of rhetoric that is ultimately anti-queer and I do not have the time or patience to try to break it down right now. Best for me to just leave it be, because I know from personal experience that the only way to solve that problem is to want to learn from the experiences of others. That's something I can't do for you and I suspect you have no interest in doing for yourself.

As for Trump I doubt I can change your mind about him at this point. I don't really blame you tbh. I've listened to a few of his recent speeches in the past few days since staring this conversation and he is undeniably charismatic. Even I at times felt myself almost comforted by the confidence and clarity it presented on certain topics. However I kept getting pulled out of it by the way he presented certain things.

As I mentioned before, trans rights and the wellbeing of trans people is extremely important to me because many of the people dearest to me are trans. I see their pain and their joy and I just want the best for them. Every time Trump speaks about trans people he is blatantly transphobic, from his word choice to the way he presents issues. He'll take a sentence or so to say "I love all people. I have nothing against transgender." And then immediately begin presenting everything about trans people in a negative light. I have seen the consequences of people following the kinds of beliefs and stances he expresses. Those consequences are trans people getting harassed and questioned and treated like ticking time bombs simply for existing. It is inexcusable.

Additionally, I can't help but notice that whenever he talks about a group that isn't the "in-group" of voters, he uses language that obscures personhood. He says "illegals" or "illegal aliens" not "people without proper documentation" or something to that effect. He says "transgenders" (already known to be derogatory) instead of "trans people." "Dems" or "Libs" instead of "Democrats."

I know people are dismissive of the idea that language is particularly important. But science has shown multiple times that language can effect the way we conceptualize things. What do you think the psychological effect is of repeatedly presenting one's political opponents in a way that divorces them from their personhood? I'll tell you from personal experience both online and with my hardcore MAGA family members: they start treating people in those groups less like people. I've heard my stepdad begin talking about immigrants as if they are animals, pests to be exterminated. I've heard almost all of my republican family members start talking about trans people as inherently criminal and abusive; as if trans people are defined by a desire to assault others.

I doubt that I can sway your opinion, but I have personally seen the consequencss of Trump's behavior and rhetoric and they are devastating. He is undeniably transphobic, racist, and misgynistic. Maybe not by conservative definitions but by the definitions that actually matter to the people who have to face the consequences of it.

I guess the last thing I'll leave you with are a couple videos I found informative. Maybe you will think they're wrong but whatever, I think its relevant to this discussion.

https://youtu.be/A7OlQG9C4zM?si=kgo3tQOIX1VBwzGE

https://youtu.be/1kIWW2JFU0w?si=lYwJmw5ckmS_wLpU

[bitchesgetriches]

I have a question about boycotting million and\or billionaires. How much financial damage can it do? Is the aim political damage? Asking because I've seen 'Boycott Jkr to stop her financial influence on British politics' stuff around and I'm just wondering if it will actually have an effect on her financially? The women has millions of not billions of pounds and I'm just not sure a boycott, at what is probably the tail end of her career, can do. I personally don't buy HP merch because I don't like her anymore and I don't want to show her any support, but it's more political for me than actually trying to un-millionaire her.

You are one smart cookie, my dove! For you're right: what we as individuals do to boycott millionaire creators like J.K. Rowling will have very little affect on their bottom line. But boycotting is not without merit. Lemme 'splain!

Why it won't affect her income:

- She's already a billionaire. And when you have a billion dollars, it's easy to KEEP a billion dollars even if you never work for another dollar again in your lifetime. That's because of the power of compound interest through investing. Rowling doesn't NEED your money anymore, because her own money just keeps replicating itself.

- Her legacy is secure. In 50 years, people will look back at her transphobia the same way they look at Tolkien's racism and say "she was a product of her time." Her transphobic ideology will not age well because acceptance of transgender people is on the rise. But historically speaking, people might go gently on her because right now... she's sadly not alone in her transphobia. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

- Rich people will always have a disproportionate say in political policy until world governments put laws in place to mitigate their power. In the United States, that means overturning Citizens United (among other things). I'm sure the UK has a similar fight to get money out of politics, and you should look into it and get involved!

Why a boycott still matters:

- THE WORLD IS WATCHING. The arc of history doesn't just bed towards justice on its own. It gets BENT that way by people like you who are willing to make a fuss against discrimination and injustice. J.K. Rowling is such a famous, powerful person that I'm POSITIVE a lot of people who never even knew transgender people existed are being educated on trans rights by the outcry against her. You need to raise your voice every time she says something transphobic, to make sure her viewpoint is countered where the ignorant can see and learn.

- She's such a beloved figure for so many people, and has a reputation for teaching about love, friendship, acceptance, and being anti-bigotry. Her hypocrisy when it comes to trans rights is a startling contrast to this reputation. So boycotting her products now is a way of saying "It's not good enough to say you're against bigotry. You have to live that principle in every way, and be willing to learn and adjust over time."

- Again, this is a reeeeeeeally public fight. There are people out there who are creating content that is directly influenced by this fight! Boycotting a transphobic creator shows others who are less successful that there are consequences for transphobia, and they will learn and adjust accordingly.

Anyway, I hope that helps kiddo! I know the boycott is not for everyone (a friend has massive Harry Potter tattoos she's not covering up, for example). We ourselves wrote a couple of Harry Potter themed articles a few years ago, and we're leaving them up. Context is important, and we don't believe in sugarcoating our history. Some stuff doesn't age well, and sometimes we all make mistakes! But we're learning.

I think talking about this stuff, even in the vein of Your Fave Is Problematic can only be helpful. As painful as the boycott and discussion is right now, I'm optimistic about a more trans-inclusive future.

[morlock-holmes]

Is that... not the point? It's certainly, on some level, my point when I say this.

This may be controversial, but I don't think there's anything insane or bigoted about being ambivalent or worried about the potential side effects of trans medical interventions, particularly on children.

The question is, why are you worried?

There's a thing people do, which adults frequently do to kids and which kids pick up on very well.

And what it is, is a kind of faux concern. It overtly expresses itself as concern about a subject, for example, "I'm concerned that this trans stuff might not be right for you." but the way it's expressed makes it very clear that the actual problem is something like, "You being trans would make me very uncomfortable, and I want that feeling of discomfort to go away".

So your responses to your kid focus less on making them more comfortable, and more on making them more palatable to you, regardless of how that affects them.

That's all, perhaps, very abstract.

There was an emergency order recently by one of the state attorneys general that demanded that all kids people (EDIT: Part of the reason it was such a stupid series of warnings was because it mandated that adult trans people get a warning that a lot of parents don't like when their kids get trans interventions. As usual, I am making up a more sane version of something) being given puberty blockers or hormones be provided with a rambling, mostly non-sensical series of "warnings" but one of them was that puberty blockers could cause "brain swelling" which does sound, I must say, somewhat alarming.

The same emergency order required no such warning if you prescribe puberty blockers for precocious puberty, which, if you are motivated purely by concern over medical side effects, is fucking insane.

The dominant force motivating concern over side effects of trans medical interventions is that a lot of people don't like the idea of there being lots of trans youth. It's very efficient to couch that concern as a concern over medical side effects, because there probably is real concern there, but it also allows people to couch their fundamental transphobia in terms that they find more palatable than just pure bigotry.

As a kid, I took a lot of mental health meds, and as an adult I am very skeptical about how these treatments that we still don't understand very well might have effected me. I wonder if perhaps they damaged my libido long term or did something else subtler.

I did not have these opinions at the time, and it definitely wasn't because I had been brainwashed by big pharma.

These kinds of concerns were rampant at the time; autism hadn't caught the public eye yet so the big controversy was whether we were giving too much ADHD medicine to boys simply for acting like boys.

"Instead of using all these ADHD meds to sedate boys into compliance, we should let them run around and hit each other more in school, like boys are supposed to"

My response was always, "First of all ADHD meds are usually stimulants not sedatives, and second of all as a boy in school that sounds like a fucking nightmare."

What I took from this and a lot of other stuff at the time was that the anti-medication contingent was mostly focused on calming their own anxieties, rather than solving the problems I had that caused me to look to medication as a solution.

The problem was that I was being medicated and that upset a lot of adults; calming or expressing that upset was clearly the primary aim of a lot of anti-medication rhetoric, and while the people slinging it certainly would not have objected to me having my problems solved, that was very clearly a secondary concern when compared to their concern with assuring themselves that society was still as they imagined that it should be.

I think a very similar dynamic is at work in modern day trans panics.

Except I DO think we should be nanny-stating a little more about ballet and football and other worst-for-long-term-health sports! I do! Like it’s worth pointing out the hypocrisy and it’s especially worth pointing out that regular puberty is also irreversible changes but this comparison feels counterproductive to me on the whole. Because I think if we changed how ballet works so kids aren’t going in as deep end as young as they are that would probably be Good, Actually. I’m not 100% certain about this because I do have a pretty strong “autonomy first” instinct and kids have their own ambitions, but the organized sport nature of it makes me like. 95% certain.

[whoaffle]

Reflection...

Today I got two messages on my other blog about a post I made. One was a traditional hate-message that wished bad things for me and whatever, while the other one was a polite response that asked me to rethink what I had done because it was transphobic. Honestly, the second one is the one that actually shook me up... Because it’s something that matters to me, it’s something that I think may be an actual problem, and I wanna hear from trans people what they think, because if I’m promoting transphobia somehow, I want to change that! This is important.

Meanwhile the first message was just... “sigh right. Let’s reply”. It didn’t get me thinking afterwards, it didn’t make me sad or worried... It was just like... When you step on a rock and it’s kinda uncomfortable but then you just say “ouch, shit” and then go on with your stuff and forget about it! The transphobia one stuck to me, though...

And that got me thinking about the nature of hate-messages... They are so irrelevant in terms of content, I mean... the only thing they want to do is hurt emotionally but there’s no actual food for thought on them. Yeah I know, I’m like, thinking about it right now, but like, I’m not thinking about what the person said because it was just generic hate bullshit. I’m thinking about the contrast between how impactful the two messages were to me... I feel like hate messages aim for a week spot in the reader’s emotional balance, so that they can mine you and cause emotional trouble, but when they fail to reach that spot, they are completely inefficient! Like, a total waste of time and that’s all...

Now actual criticism is really important and impactful, it wasn’t full of hatred, it didn’t aim for my emotions or week spots, it was moved by rational thought and proposed a reflection about what I was implying with my art, and THAT is something than can actually get you thinking... It’s just so much more effective in terms of promoting growth and reflection!

I think that’s the difference I wanted to find: Hate messages get you feeling (when they are efficient), while criticism gets you thinking...

[nomenculture]

Also see previous entries in this series: The confusion between sex and gender. [x] How not to prove the objective existence of gender. [x]

First, what is genderism? It can be used in the same sense as “sexism” and “racism.” And indeed that is how it’s mostly been used. But in this case I mean it in the colloquial sense of people who enforce gender roles. ...

The concept of genderism, as used in feminism, is usually defined as the belief that certain behavioral preferences are caused by a person’s sex, in general that one’s gender is the result of one’s sex, and therefore that gender is natural (and even desirable).

This stands in stark contrast to the view that gender is a social construct. It is also generally held as being the opposite of feminism, because feminists believe that being of the female sex does not constitute an obligation to take on a gender role which is constructed as inferior and subservient.

What are the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex?

If you are a Feminist (even a Liberal Feminist or a Fun Feminist), the answer to this should be “There are no behaviors and roles considered appropriate for my sex because Females can be and do anything.”

There is a lot of nuances in definitions here, but they are not entirely necessary. For example, some include within genderism the belief that there are two genders. But the two genders are an artefact of culture; some culture have three genders or four genders, and really, the exact number is irrelevant: all that matters is that some are seen as superior and some are seen as inferior. Genderism would not magically disappear if we added another gender to the list.

So who are genderists exactly? There are two kinds. One is traditional genderism, which generally in the West holds that one’s gender was assigned by God or evolution through their sex. This covers the gamut from non-science (Bible fundamentalists) to pseudo-science (evolutionary psychology) to quasi-science (studies and papers written to “prove” genderism), as well as most conservatives and liberals.

Even if they vastly disagree on pretty much everything, the goal of all traditional genderists is to suppress feminism and restore “women’s place” in society in order to uphold the gender hierarchy. And these various factions have been quite successful; together they encompass so many approaches that one of them is bound to work.

The second kind is trans genderism (not to be confused with transgenderism). Trans theory states that when a male does not feel that ey is a man, or when a female does not feel that ey is a woman, this is a fundamental biological problem which must be rectified by chemical treatment and/or surgery. They believe in the link between sex and gender just as much; they simply add another layer, the “innate gender” which trumps one’s “assumed gender” and otherwise takes over its role.

Trans activists believe they are anti-genderism. This may be so, but the very definition of transgender implies a link between sex and gender:

Transgender (an umbrella term) (adj.)- for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to trans or TG) people are those whose psychological self (“gender identity”) differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with.

These are by far the most common definitions of transgender given by trans-friendly groups, and they clearly link sex and gender. If one is male, then one should feel like a man, and that if one is female, then one should feel like a woman. Gender rebels must be “helped” with chemical treatments and surgery so they can perform the proper gender.

In contrast, the traditional genderist position is that males are men and females are women, and gender rebels must be punished, not rehabilitated. The radfem position, on the other hand, is that we should live the way we want regardless of sex, that neither sex nor gender should limit us, and that gender-rebels deserve neither medical rehabilitation nor punishment.

From a radfem perspective, trans theory is extremely offensive in that it enforces gender roles while giving the illusion of choice. It ostensibly tells people that they can be whatever they want, but in practice they use one’s conformity or non-conformity to gender roles to assign them a label of “cis” or “trans.” And have created a new gender heirarchy between “cis” and “trans.”

Reducing “woman” to a checklist of characteristics that others have forced upon us is insulting. Feeling that you are a woman because you have a medically made hole in your body that does not act anything like our reproductive organ is insulting. Thinking that you can be a woman without experiencing the effects of being a woman in infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood is insulting. Womanhood is not putting on a frilly dress and being emotionally available. Womanhood is dealing with the fact that that is the expectation of us, which you just reinforce.

Cis/trans is a tyrannical, binary label which aims to erase all levels of gender rebellion. Everyone who is not genderist and who rebels against gender has no choice but to take refuge in the domain of queer and eschew the cis/trans binary completely (I know nothing of queer theory, so I will refrain from talking further about it). Given the fact that it reduces third genders from other cultures to a “trans” label that simply doesn’t apply, it is also a colonialist, some might even say white supremacist, concept.

I’m a bakla Filipina. To call me trans for being bakla is to entirely erase the cultural specificity of my identity and to enact a type of cultural imperialism, something I most certainly do reject. Yet in Asher’s binary construction of cis/trans I am considered trans, something that I am not. Either that or simply rendered invisible.

Please note that I am not accusing trans activists of being white supremacists. I know very well they are not. What I am saying is that some have called the cis/trans binary white supremacist from their own cultural perspective, and I completely understand that.

Gender rebellion is a consequence of the existence of gender itself. Once you set up these little prison cells where people have to conform to one or the other set of behaviors, there will be people whose personalities lead them to adopt an admixture of both, and who will rebel against the attempt to impose a set on them. Now we know for a fact that few people, if any, are totally gender conforming, but most people try to follow their role enough so they don’t stick out. Some people, by virtue of having a personality that is too divergent from these sets, cannot do so, and will naturally rebel.

If you research the subject outside of radfem blogs, the first thing you will find is that many people hate radical feminism with incredible passion and vitriol. The biggest part of this vitriol comes from trans activists and their allies, who accuse radfems of being transphobic and of propagating hatred.

The reason for this should not be hard to understand. Gender is an integral part of trans theory, and anyone who seeks to eliminate gender is undercutting trans theory at its very foundation. To deny gender is to deny the transgender identity. I don’t dispute that this is bigotry, but the bigotry is the result of a systemic analysis. An anarchist is right to be a bigot against policemen and soldiers, because their job is inherently one of repression, no matter how nice the individuals might be. An antitheist is right to be a bigot against priests, even if they are nice.

Anyone who identifies their job or their very well-being with hurting other people should rightly be hated, and gender hurts people on a massive global scale. Gender is the rationale for oppressing women, gender sustains the rape culture, gender is an excuse to beat down, imprison and kill people. In that it constrains us to a set of preferred behaviors, genderism is necessarily a denial of freedom, in the political sense as well as in the personal sense. To follow a gender role means to be told how to act, how to talk, how to think, how to react, how to dress, how to have sex; as long as we have to follow gender roles, we are slaves to hierarchy.

Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation.

Gender is an extremely oppressive and unnecessary construct. Defining “trans” people as those who deviate from otherwise unobjectionable gender norms is not a progressive social cause. Fighting for everyone’s right to be as gender “non-conforming” as they wanna be, on the other hand, is.

Some people even claim that radfems want to kill transgender people. This is a straightforward lie, but it is a fact that trans theory applied to children leads to the extermination of homosexuality, because a majority of gender rebellious children are homosexual. They are also the ones who issue death threats to “cis” people (the most popular trans slogan is “die cis scum”). It is traditional genderists who kill transgender people and want to take away their rights, not radical feminists. Trans advocates accuse radfem of “transphobia,” but they are the ones who constantly lie to transgender people and tell them that there’s something physically wrong with gender-rebelling children and adults.

I honestly don’t know a group of people more compassionate than people who run radical feminists blogs on the Internet. This is why it boggles my mind when I read claims that radfems are hateful monsters: it is disconnected from the reality I observe in a very egregious way, and so it feels like they’re invalidating my experience. Of course they don’t care that they’re invalidating me: to them, radfem are walking sulfur-smelling devils and that’s all there is to it. I don’t really know what to reply to that attitude except that they’re speaking out of a position of willful ignorance.

[silenthillmutual]

This site has, among other things, a unique spin on transphobia that targets trans men specifically, that no one addresses.

Which is, all of these posts about being indescriminate and proud man-haters - in addition to failing to appreciate intersectionality in a way that manages to be ableist, queerphobic, and racist - are without a doubt targeted at trans men.

Because they say, "yes, all men", sometimes with that added looking-into-the-camera effect of "even trans men", and the horrid logic that somehow excluding us from your hatred would be transphobic but targeting us specifically is revolutionary and progressive.

And this shit is just encouraged and lauded on here.

And when it comes from mutuals or just people who follow me, the message is clear: not only do you hate trans men, potentially view us as traitors, but you don't believe we actually are men, because you looked at me - a trans man - and decided "no, he's still a girl."

Edit: in case this wasn’t clear, this is specifically talking about posts that are aimed at trans men, or posts that say things like “men should be castrated” (which has been used in acts of racist and homophobic violence), “men should be sterilized” (which has been used in acts of racist, ableist, and homophobic violence), “men should be euthanized” (which has been used in antisemitic and ableist violence), or describing men using animalistic terms (which has been used in racist violence).

You may reblog this but DO NOT derail.

[wedontcareaboutyourbinary]

1) I don't really have any opinion on MeToo other than nice if it works but as far as I know it's a binary issue with the whole oppression aspect. It's my friend who's into that stuff and wants to punish evil-doers and all that jazz while she can. So when these random guys targeted me and started following me around and do the occasional butt grab and weird panting in my ear while looming over me she sees this as a prime opportunity to implement her newfound power. But based on the

2) “compliments” they were panting into my ear and that nonbinary isn’t really a thing and I go around tits present and I presume they were straight so even if they didn’t tell me they thought I was a woman I assume they were aiming all this to a woman in their minds. So it’d be misdirected misogyny or something like that. Kind of when people think I’m a foreigner because I was given an exotic name but it’s not actual xenophobia because I’m not a foreigner. But anyway it’d be co-opting

3) women’s experiences because misogyny is meant for them. If they would’ve somehow guessed I’m nonbinary then I could’ve said it’s transphobia or whatever the word is for nonbinary people or maybe exorsexism if I had corrected them and as nonbinary isn’t a thing they probably wouldn’t have believed that. But as they probably thought I was a woman it had a misogynist intent and a non-woman can’t experience misogyny even when I was harassed it wasn’t about me and I can’t make women’s

4) issues my issues. So if it gets reported everybody will view it as misogyny and I end up leeching on women’s work to end harassment towards them unless I correct it by outing myself. I mean if a man is mistaken as a woman and harassed based on that they can’t say it was meant for them so why should I be allowed some special treatment just because I happen to look like a woman to everybody? It’s my problem I should solve by myself and not use it to make issues that aren’t about me literally

5) about me. There are lots of actual women who get harassed without me barging in to mess it up for them just because I pass as a woman and could go on forever wondering is all harassment I ever face really about people aiming it to me as a “woman” or me as a person they don’t like or respect. Statistics say it’s the former but I’m not going to stick around to ask when people start groping me so I aim to respect women and stay in my lane and stay out of their business both good and bad.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I’m going to start with the part that I at least can find vaguely humorous: you have here sent an ask saying that an issue is binary, to a blog whose URL is literally ‘we don’t care about your binary’.

Oppressive binaries are generally false ones constructed to condense the oppressive structure into a nice straightforward us vs them situation. This is useful for the oppressors, not least because it makes everyone who doesn’t actually fit the Designated Oppressed Group question their own experiences no end, and it splinters various marginalised groups because they don’t see the common roots to their marginalisation.

The binary is false. Gender is not a binary. Neither, shockingly, is gendered oppression. And I pointed out yesterday that there are several systems interlocking within the realm of gender-related oppression.

The idea that gendered oppression is a binary issue relies either on subsuming everything bad that happens to non-cis people under misogyny (and a lot of it does overlap, not least because of ‘misdirected misogyny’ and the fact that, thanks to the oppressive group doing their best to model ‘them’ as a single cohesive group, anyone who isn’t a cis man is likely to get boxed into ‘woman’ at some point, but misogyny does not explain everything that trans, NB and genderqueer people face!), or denying that anyone who isn’t a woman could ever be oppressed for something related to gender.

That, as Lune pointed out yesterday, is gender reductionism. It focuses on a specific identitarian distinction (between ‘man’ and ‘woman’) without any actual regard for the lived experiences of non-cis people. As such, it is not a functional model for explaining the marginalisation of non-cis people.

Of course, how much of that I can really explain to you I do have to question, given your statement that ‘nonbinary isn’t really a thing’.

Please think about who you sent this to and why you worded it that way, anon. What is prompting you to ask a group of people who consider themselves nonbinary for advice, when you apparently don’t even believe that ‘nonbinary’ is a thing someone can be? Hell, what’s prompting you to identify with the label if you don’t believe it exists?

I’d wager that someone else’s words are coming out of your mouth there. Do think about why you’re letting those words do that. Why are you holding onto that version of the world? What’s it offering you apart from invalidation, dismissal and erasure?

but it’s not actual xenophobia because I’m not a foreigner

You know, I’d be inclined to say it is? It’s a negative reaction to something perceived as being From Elsewhere, so the people having the reaction are definitely, you know, xenophobic? Even if they happen to be wrong about the thing being From Elsewhere?

And if this is meant to be a parallel to your experiences of misdirected misogyny: you’re pulling a complicated mental runaround here that would imply that bigotry is not real when directed at you because you’re not the Target Group, and that said bigotry is directed at you because you are mistakenly assumed to be the Target Group.

Taken together? Those two things would suggest that the people who harassed you, even though they presumably harassed you because they assumed you were a woman, aren’t actually misogynistic, because it can’t be misogyny if it happens to you.

Does that make sense to you? Does that sound like a sensible way to model oppressive systems? Because to me it does not.

If they would’ve somehow guessed I’m nonbinary then I could’ve said it’s transphobia or whatever the word is for nonbinary people or maybe exorsexism if I had corrected them and as nonbinary isn’t a thing they probably wouldn’t have believed that.

I mean… it was transantagonistic anyway because they assumed your gender based on cissexist criteria? Oppressive systems overlap! I’m going to have to repeat that a great many times, I suspect!

And again with the ‘nonbinary isn’t a thing’. What is it, to you, anon? And whose definition are you actually working off?

I can’t make women’s issues my issues

… more than one group of people can have the same issue? Oppression is not as binary as a lot of analysis would make it. 

(And I know we love the binary analysis because it makes things so simple and easy to understand, and if we try to analyse things in a less binary way things get incredibly complicated. But if our theory is not complicated, it will be wrong. And that is worse.)

You’re talking about a kind of harassment that serves to reinforce power. Misogynistic social structures are a major power dynamic where that kind of harassment is used to reinforce that power, but it is not by any means the only one.

Again: yes, absolutely, be aware of who’s being disproportionately affected, be aware of why you’re being targeted, none of that is bad practice exactly, but this is about an incident in which you, you specifically, were harassed, correct?

Whose experience is that if not yours, anon? Who is actually the target of this harassment that was directed at you if not you?

I’m also going to point you to the last point described in this post, the Mistaken Identity Argument. Please have a read through of that post, and take a good long hard think about what it might imply about NB people as a group and their experiences that you’re so willing to deny your own experiences this way.

(Exclusionary rhetoric is often recycled. Yes, that post is from a ways back in the anti-ace discourse, comparing it to the exclusion of bi people. The underlying principles will likely hold true across a great many other cases. And you really are repeating the Mistaken Identity Argument damn near word for word here.)

So if it gets reported everybody will view it as misogyny and I end up leeching on women’s work to end harassment towards them unless I correct it by outing myself.

This is honestly a fascinating (if disturbing) thing to read, because… well, surely, if your experience is misdirected misogyny, and gets reported and understood to be a misogynistic attack, then it being reported will in fact help women work towards ending harassment motivated by misogyny? How is it ‘leeching’ when it’s helping women get where they want to get?

The only explanation that’s actually occurring to me is that you think it would somehow be inappropriate for the success of one group to have beneficial effects for another group (in this example, it’d be somehow inappropriate for efforts to reduce harassment towards women to also reduce harassment directed at you). Which… what even. Curb cutter effect, for one, and for two, oppression overlaps. That is the way of things in this bastard society.

I mean if a man is mistaken as a woman and harassed based on that they can’t say it was meant for them so why should I be allowed some special treatment just because I happen to look like a woman to everybody?

It would be an attack motivated by misogyny directed at someone who is not a woman. It would be harassment, and the man in question would be well within their right to be upset and distressed over being harassed.

I’m not sure what this was meant to clarify. Yes, the man is not necessarily an intended target of misogyny. But if they got taken for a woman and harassed over it, then it’s still that man who has been harassed. It might not have been ‘meant for them’ in the sense that they’re not actually a woman, but someone decided that they were an appropriate target and harassed them because of it. It’s still wrong even if it’s ‘misdirected’ misogyny. That goes under the same principles that any other case of non-women being on the receiving end of misogyny-motivated harassment would.

(Also: you realise that there are men in the world who go through harassment for exactly the same reason you did? There are trans men who haven’t, can’t or won’t transition in a way that gets them read consistently as men?)

There are lots of actual women who get harassed without me barging in to mess it up for them

And how, precisely, are you messing things up for them? Are you forwarding any kind of argument or politics that contradicts the aim of ‘reduce misogynistic harassment’? Sure, having to contend with an understanding of oppression that isn’t binary means more headwork, but if we don’t do that headwork, we’re going to be working from a bunch of faulty premises. Unless you’re also going to start arguing that non-cis people don’t experience any kind of independent oppression, that shouldn’t be all that controversial a statement.

Statistics say it’s the former

I’m not going to argue with you about why you think you’re being targeted, but my inner scientist will never shut up if I don’t address this: of course the bloody statistics say you’re being targeted for being read as a women when most of them don’t even account for the existence of nonbinary people.

How many official documents have you come across that have options beyond ‘man’ and ‘woman’? Society is exorsexist, folks! And outside the realm of assorted alphabet soup communities, most statistics won’t go any further than the official documents.

So like. Yeah, women are disproportionately chosen as targets of harassment. But let’s not get too wrapped up in what statistics that don’t even acknowledge the existence of NB people say about our experiences, mmkay?

Now, for the record: please understand that what you’ve plated up here displays a great deal of exorsexism. There’s the blatant ‘nonbinary isn’t a thing’, for starters. Quite frankly, there’s fuck all we can do to explain exorsexism or anything else to you if that’s the stage you’re operating at. I can go on all I like about how NB people specifically face forced invisibility and denial of identity, how this serves to splinter marginalised communities and play them off against each other, how modelling gendered oppression as being about man vs woman disservices NB people specifically, but if you can still find it in you to respond to that with ‘nonbinary isn’t a thing’, then… what the fuck are you expecting from us?

Then there’s your incredibly binary-centred understanding of oppression. This blog spends a lot of time on the subject of how binary-centric privilege politics fail NB people, and here you are, just… plating up more of the same. Why? What are you expecting us to say in response to this anyway?

Further: other NB people in the world have experienced harassment. A fair few of us have experienced it while closeted and pretending to be women, or just straight up being misgendered as women. When you say that misogynistic harassment couldn’t possibly matter when it happens to you because you’re not a woman? You’re telling one hell of a lot of other NB people that you don’t think we’re allowed to be angry or upset about the harassment that happened to us, because that also happened while we were being misgendered as women.

And I’m going to get very serious for a moment here: what you’re doing - distancing what happened from yourself, giving every excuse you can think of as to why it wasn’t actually bad, why it didn’t actually matter - is classic trauma survivor mentality.

It’s a survival tactic, it’s the kind of thing that keeps us alive when we have nowhere else to go. When you’re making it about your experience of having a certain marginalised identity the way you’ve done, it has splash damage. It’s a mental framework designed to endure, not to improve.

I don’t know if that’s what going on with you. I don’t know a great deal at all about your situation. I can’t do more than offer ideas.

And based on the fact that basically everything I’ve said here is the same stuff I said yesterday, at greater length, I can only assume that you’re not hugely open to taking in those ideas at present. That’s for you to deal with in your own time, you’re the only person who can live your life. I don’t know what you’re expecting us to offer you when you can’t even do us the courtesy of believing that maybe we do in fact exist as NB people.

So I’m going to return to yesterday’s questions that you never answered: do you honestly believe that it’s okay that you were harassed because it was by mistake? Do you honestly think that your harasser should get away with doing what they did because they did it making incorrect assumptions about you?

I’m not asking for some defeatist blather as to why you aren’t allowed to have an opinion on your own life and experiences because someone else was transantagonistic and exorsexist on top of being misogynistic and misgendered you. I’m asking do you honestly believe that what happened was okay and should be dismissed?

- Cade

[freedom-of-fanfic]

hey um just a request, but you seem to use dfab and dmab often in weird contexts when you could just say women and men. e.g.: "any mlm that is shipped by more dfab people than dmab people." as a nonbinary trans person, a sex assigned at birth is not relevant most of the time, so could you maybe use it less when it isn't necessary?

thanks for letting me know your thoughts, anon. I’m pretty sure that particular example comes from the ‘my objections to anti-shipping’ post, which is pretty old now (though I reblogged it from myself today). I remember re-reading that recently and thinking ‘ah, I don’t think this is the best use of these phrases’ but I forgot to edit the original post anyway (classic adhd move, tbh). But still, it’s not the only example of me using descriptors that are kinda ‘eh’. 

I’m sorry that my word choice here was inappropriate and may have made you feel uncomfortable.

my use of descriptors like afab, amab, intersex*, genderqueer, cis, nb, trans, male, female, woman, man, etc is constantly evolving as I try to be precise but also inclusive when I talk about experiences that are affected by gender (which, let’s be real, is a huge number of experiences).

under the cut I’ll go into more detail about why I think picking the right combination of gender descriptors is both really important to me and also difficult to get right without causing anyone harm.

(built in tw: descriptions of transphobia/transmisogyny and mentions of the harm it causes.)

because my blog deals almost entirely in fandom experiences and how they are influenced by negative outside factors, I believe it’s very important to address both personal gender identity and how gender identity is perceived/treated by others (especially bigots/ignorant people) both currently and over the course of their lives. but that gets very complicated, very fast.

For example, every gender experience will be different from one another even if they share aspects of their gender identity:

- even though all cis and trans women are women, cis women and trans women will have very different experiences of womanhood. 

- to dissect this down even further, a trans person who realizes they are trans very early in life and is able to live as their true gender will have a different gender experience from a trans person who doesn’t realize they are trans until later in life, or who realizes they are trans early in life but is forcibly misgendered by people around them, or a person who changes from a non-transgender identity to a transgender identity as an adult, etc etc.

Relatedly, a person’s life experiences are also deeply affected by what gender other people assign them regardless of their consent:

 - If someone of any gender is raised under the assumption they are a particular gender because of their agab, they will share certain experiences with other people who are assigned the same gender at birth. otoh, how it affects them will depend in part on what their actual gender is, or if their gender identity changes down the line.

- obviously, non-cis people have to contend with a variety of nastiness that cis people don’t have to deal with. I won’t go into detail b/c nobody needs that grossness, but suffice to say: TERFs, right-wing activist groups like FRC, and transphobes in general make non-cis lives particularly difficult, up to and including getting non-cis people killed. in particular transgender people (but this also affects other non-cis identities).

- other forms of misgendering also cause harm, whether deliberate or not. from outright bigotry to people who think there are only two genders out of ignorance to people who use misgendering as a weapon to accidental assumptions of the wrong gender, it’s shit, and everyone will have a different experience with these issues based on a shitton of variables.

- and if all of the above wasn’t enough, gender experiences are heavily influenced by cultural background, the political climate, racism, sexual orientation, and on and on and on.

(and regarding my * on intersex above the cut: i am not intersex, and while I have read/heard a variety of experiences from personal anecdotal accounts by intersex people I generally try to avoid commenting on it from lack of knowledge (particularly because some intersex people have expressed they do not view ‘intersex’ as a gender descriptor but rather as a medical state.))

These are all things I try to bear in mind when making a post on tumblr that references gender. here’s an example of the kind of internal debates that come up:

the Japanese word ‘fujoshi’ is gendered, referring specifically to women who enjoy/create BL & queer-eye fictional m/m relationships. It carries this gendered connotation both when referring to a particular fan experience* and when it’s used as an insult in English-speaking fandom. What gender descriptors do I use to refer to people who are affected by this?

(*in this case I’m referring to using ‘fujoshi’ to describe a specific fan experience in English-speaking fandom/primarily US experience. By virtue of being a different culture than Japan, the experience described by ‘fujoshi’ will necessarily be different.)

as a fan experience, I’d say ‘fujoshi’ can encompass the experiences of women and/or afab people (particularly afab people who were raised under the assumption they were a woman whether or not this was true) who choose to describe themselves as fujoshi.

women: encompassing trans and cis women. (trans women may or may not share the experience of being recognized as a woman/identifying as a woman while being raised, but they are still just as affected all their lives by messages aimed at women.)

and/or afab people, particularly if they were raised under the assumption of being a female whether they were or not: afab people who are raised as women are also affected all their lives by messages aimed at women, though that experience is likely quite different from gender identity to gender identity.

who choose to describe themselves as fujoshi: a person who was raised under the assumption they are a woman may share certain experiences with other afab people, but even if they experienced the same messages/similar experiences as other afab people who chose to identify as ‘fujoshi’, that doesn’t mean they fall under the descriptor of ‘fujoshi’. I’m particularly thinking of trans men and nb people here - unless any one individual says differently about themselves, I think calling a trans man or person off the gender binary a ‘fujoshi’ would be misgendering them - but there may be many examples of people who don’t relate to the gendered aspect of ‘fujoshi’ for many reasons.

as an insult, I’d say ‘fujoshi’ is almost always a mess of gender essentialism and misgendering. It refers to those that are perceived as women by the person slinging the insult. ‘Perceived women’ often include cis women and/or afab people of any gender, frequently including trans men, and occasionally encompasses trans women who the insulter sees as ‘passing’ as a cis woman.

perceived women: people that the insulter and/or ignorant portions of society would categorize as a woman without the person’s consent and regardless of accuracy.

cis women and/or afab people of any gender: a gender essentialist views gender as being synonymous with genitals (intersex people frequently either being categorized by the insulter separately or by whatever HRT/surgery was chosen for them). (in practice radfem ideology has the same effect, but they argue that gender doesn’t exist at all (only biological sex does).)

frequently including trans men: depending on how far the insulter is willing to go with their misgendering & often influenced by whether or not the insulter perceives a trans man as ‘passing’ as a cis man. (this may be affected by whether or not a trans man has undergone HRT/surgery depending on the opinion of the insulter.)

occasionally encompasses trans women who the insulter sees as ‘passing’ as a cis woman: because if they ‘pass’ they may be perceived as a ‘real woman’ (ugh ugh ugh). (this may also be affected by HRT/surgery depending on the opinion of the insulter.)

and now that I’ve settled on these descriptions, how do I condense them to something easy to read without distracting from the points I’m trying to make?

as an experience: “women and/or afab people”, maybe? perhaps “women and/or some afab people”?as an insult: “perceived women”, maybe?

(and I’m happy to take constructive criticism on this. I’d prefer it be sent not on anon so we can privately discuss it rather than doing it in posts on this blog (and if you don’t want to discuss your thoughts, just want to share and go, feel free to let me know - I won’t demand your time.))

in short: I think about a lot of stuff every time I pick gender descriptors on this blog. This doesn’t mean I always make the right choices - far from it - and there may not even be a truly ‘right’ choice. But I’m always seeking to be as inclusive and honest as I can be.

(PS: I don’t talk about my gender status here much other than to say ‘i’m afab’ because while I don’t presently identify as cis, I’m murky on it myself still & I don’t want my gender identity to affect whether or not ppl speak up about their opinions about my use of gender descriptors.)

[opiatemasses]

Are transgender athletes in sport acceptable? An insight into the controversies and experiences of transgender athletes in sport

Coming into the 21st century, the population has become more accepting to the people in the LGBT community, and rightly so. It is not acceptable to discriminate anyone, let alone someone who may not feel comfortable with the body they was born in. With around 1.2% to 6.8% of the 7.8 billion people on this earth identifying as LGBT, this shows the diversity this world has. However, within sport, it is still widely argued that trans athletes should not be allowed to compete, but is this fair?

In regards to athletes who were born female, and made the transition to male are said to be more acceptable, according to existing research. This was undertaken by measuring muscle mass (via magnetic resonance imaging) and hormone levels (via urine and blood analyses) before and 1 year after cross-sex hormone treatment. Results showed that after a year, transgender males administered cross-sex hormones had reduced their testosterone levels to that of a cisgender male. The science behind these findings show that transgender male athletes (those born as a female) are shown to have no competitive advantage after a year of cross-sex hormone distribution. So following this information on transgender male athletes, would you say that your perception of trans-male athletes has changed? If so let’s see if your mind can be changed with the discussion of transgender female athletes.   

So why is there so much more controversy towards transgender female athletes? Of course there are more factors that people bring to the table such as pre-transition muscle mass, bone structure, testosterone etc. However, these claims have also been tested by science. The results show that with testosterone blockers and the consumption of oestrogen, after the year of cross-sex hormone distribution, the advantages can barely be seen, if there is any. Although studies were carried out with a small range of participants, there is much more research to be done. What would your opinion be after the information given? 

However, there still seems to be a huge stigma towards this side of trans athletes. Former Olympic swimming champion Sharron Davies has compared the controversy over transgender athletes competing in women's sports to the East German doping scandal of the 1980s. This is a big statement for a former Olympic champion to make as her voice can be heard and spread due to her position in the sporting world, and may cause negative views and assumptions towards the transgender athlete community. This is where the issue of transphobia comes into play, but that will touched upon later.  

The case of Rachel McKinnon 

Rachel McKinnon is a transgender athlete who won the World Cycling 200 metre sprint record for women in 2018, making her the first transgender World Track Cycling Champion. She was born a man and argues that she has no unfair competitive advantage in her genetic make up. From 2.30 in the video, she released a picture of her testosterone levels, showing that her testosterone levels were “nearly in-detectable” . Moreover, the trans community, as well as some in the medical profession, claim that trans women who make the shift via hormonal therapy after puberty lose any male muscle-mass advantage within a year. This suggests there is empirical evidence that she had no advantage over her fellow female athletes. Do you believe that transgender female athletes have a competitive advantage? 

Controversy

Like with any touchy subject, the transgender athletic community (as well as the LGBT community) has faced serious abuse and backlash over their choices as a human. Some people chose to be ignorant who have tunnel-visioned views about the world, whereas some are academics trying to prove a point. Whatever the case it’s fair to say that the community is under scrutiny and a judgemental eye of the rest of the world. While trans-athletes are trying to come into the world of sport and make their mark, transphobia is evident whether it be in the news or the tabloids, which runs down the image the transgender community have been trying to fight for. Transphobia is a very serious word and has a lot of harsh meaning, which is what the majority of trans athletes go through day to day. 

A case in Connecticut, USA showed how the parents of a high school created a petition to ban transgender females from running in the high school track and field state championships, due to trans athletes  winning the past two championships. Supporters of  two petitions to eliminate the transgender regulations claim that their efforts aren’t aimed at the individual athletes who will be most directly impacted by the regulations. This then brought the question, how this act of discrimination would affect the trans athletes, as it is hard to debate the impact such rules and regulations could have on the transgender athletes themselves. In history, the negative effects of discrimination can be seen plain and simple, so its no question the negative impact it would have on trans-athletes.  

How can this be changed?

Of course one article of the transgender athletic community will not bring light to every person with a negative view, but for the valid points put across for the life of transgender athletes, it may make you as the readers ask yourself, have I ever been transphobic?

Whether intentionally or not, you may want to ask yourself have you ever made comments or spoken in a negative way without any research or evidence? Of course everyone is entitled to their own views, but the research that can be done may make some think a bit differently. Overall,  your views are your views, and I respect whatever you believe, but even if after all of this you still think negatively about the trans-athletic community (and the LGBT community) just take a step back and think how your comments may impact the psychological state and well-being of another human. Can your views and actions have a serious impact on others? 

N0774147

[newqueerpanthermodern]

A Queer, Midwest Joan of Arc

“The fire is still there -- we just need a reason why,” she said.

I first met Trish “Devi8” through roller derby, where she volunteers as a medical staff member to keep us safe during all the collisions and chaos of the sport. A 40-something Minnesota native and a nurse at a local children’s hospital, she is the most cynical optimist I’ve ever met, with a dark humor and a bright, genuine laugh. 

When not working long night shifts, Devi, as she’s affectionately known in the roller derby community, volunteers at the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition shot clinic and speaks about queer issues anywhere and everywhere she can.

Most recently, Devi was an instrumental part of a movement to change the name of our Minneapolis derby league, North Star, from “Roller Girls” to “Roller Derby,” as a major step toward welcoming non-binary, trans and queer skaters to the sport, and validating those already participating.  

“Derby is a very alternative, grassroots and progressive community,” Devi said. “I have been involved in North Star for five years, and we’re a bunch of misfits. I mean that in the best way possible.”

In spite of her tireless work ethic and strong voice, she doesn’t claim the term leader, at least not for herself.

“I think of it as advocacy -- I choose to use my voice for good because there are some people that can’t, because it’s not safe for them to do so. It’s an opportunity and a privilege,” Devi said. “After being out for 23 years, it would honestly kill me to not use my voice. It’s ingrained in me, it’s so much of who I am.”

“I have always known I’m queer, not like anyone else, and that has never bothered me,” Devi said.

With a high school graduating class of just 48 people in the tiny town of Warren, Minnesota, “it was intimidating being a queer kid.”

She didn’t come out formally, however, until college. At age 18, while studying to be a paramedic, Devi was outed by someone else.

“Instead of being angry, I embraced it. I ended up meeting some very good friends that way,” she said.

Devi hasn’t missed a Pride celebration in the Twin Cities since, and often takes the stage as her flamboyant and sassy persona, Miss Trish, to MC the festivities.

On or off the stage, Devi said being queer is just a part of her, and she’s not afraid to show it.

“I am pretty much in your fucking face, and I have been spit on, hit, had things thrown at me, been called ‘demon spawn’,” Devi said. “I just take that ill will and turn it around.”

As a nurse, and as former EMT, Devi has seen difficult, awful things, sometimes experiencing first-hand the effects of transphobia and homophobia.

“I am a nurse first. Most of the time when trans kids are in the hospital, it’s because they’ve attempted suicide. The worst thing you can do is misgender them,” Devi said.“So much of nursing is social justice. I wanted to change healthcare from the inside out.”

Outside the hospital, she aims to make sure no one ends up there in the first place.

Like a modern day Joan of Arc, Devi’s resilience and courage makes her seem born to take on the pain, physical and emotional, of others, and to stand up to protect those that need protecting.

“I do not think I’m wired the same way as everyone else. I just try to find the lesson in everything, do what I can to help, and accept what I cannot,” she said. “I do not identify as a Christian, but I do believe in goodness and in karma. I try to be very present for the people I care about.”

After more than two decades of being loud, proud and queer, Devi said she hopes the next generation of young, ambitious and determined queer advocates won’t forget their history.

“When I first came out, we did not have rights. You could lose your job, your housing, for being queer. It was not safe. I feel like queer youth do not understand where they come from, the people that did boots on the ground work for things we take for granted today.”

She added, though, that there’s still plenty of hope for the future, just as long as we remember where we come from.

(Photo credit where due: the first and last are mine - the second and third are Devi’s. The fourth picture is from Twin Cities Pride, by Rebecca Jean Lawrence Photography: and the fifth photo credit goes to Timothy Knox, one of our wonderful volunteer photographers)

[nothingman]

The Transgender ‘Threat’ To Free Speech Is A Lie

Photo via Flickr / taedc

Transgender people are now being positioned by anti-trans activists as a threat to a core American value: the First Amendment right to free speech.

A t the end of March, a bright orange bus snaked its way around the east coast of the United States. Making stops in major metropolitan areas including Boston, New York City, and Washington, DC, the bus called itself the “Free Speech Bus,” and it displayed a harmful message that belied its seemingly innocuous exterior: “It’s biology. Boys are boys and always will be. Girls are girls and always will be. You can’t change sex. Respect all.”

The cultural tide has begun shifting toward acceptance of the transgender community; the effectiveness of outright violence and discrimination, while still prevalent, has lessened with the increased support from the general public. As a result, folks who want to do harm to our community have had to develop new strategies.

One of those tactics is to cast transgender people as a threat — as bullies rather than victims.

The effectiveness of outright violence and discrimination has lessened—so folks who want to do harm must now figure trans people as a threat.

Perhaps the most devastating example of this new strategy is the spate of bathroom bills sweeping state governments, in which trans women have been posed as a potential sexual threat to cisgender women and girls. The insidious orange “Free Speech” bus is another variation of this tactic that’s swiftly gaining momentum. Transgender people are now being positioned by anti-trans activists as a threat to a core American value: the First Amendment right to free speech.

The Free Speech Bus is a project of Citizen GO, a self-described “community of active citizens who work together, using online petitions and action alerts as a resource, to defend and promote life, family, and liberty.” The campaign was an offshoot of a similar anti-trans bus crusade that circulated in Madrid that was impounded for violating outdoor advertising mandates. Following the incident, Citizen GO rebranded the campaign, centering its focus not on the transphobic message that the bus displayed, but on what they believed to be a more heartrending issue: the denial of their right to free speech at the hands of “radical gender ideologues.”

When Transphobia Trumps Statistics theestablishment.co

Citizen GO is a conservative Christian mirror of sites like Change.org. The organization, which seeks to politically activate primarily young folks and college students on the right, appears to have co-opted their tactics from progressive social justice movements. For example, Citizen GO emphasizes its adherence to “rationality” and “biology” as opposed to “ideological dogmas,” defining itself as a small grassroots collective, and developing its base through social media, petitions, and hashtags. In short, despite being rooted in the promotion of a privileged positionality — namely cisgender heterosexuality — Citizen GO likes to fancy itself the underdog, the oppressed.

This support of free speech is how Citizen GO justifies its intolerant views. Actions of protesters who came out against the bus and were, for the most part, acting well within their First Amendment rights to peaceful assembly and protest, are described by Citizen GO as violent, intolerant bullies. Painting themselves as the victim, Citizen GO writes, “All we ask for is respect for our views and the opportunity to voice them in accordance with the First Amendment.”

The campaign plays on the public’s tendency to fear the other, and it has done so by overstating the power and the scope of said other. Citizen GO understands the insistence on rights for trans people as “gender ideology dogma,” a tactic which fails to consider the cultural context in which the White House is actively stripping away our protections (including, yesterday, making a move to do away with a trans-inclusive health-care rule). When trans people are seen not as victims of violence and discrimination, but as violent radical ideologues and bullies who pose a threat to the right to free speech, people who harbor transphobic beliefs feel even more empowered to cling to them.

When trans people are seen not as victims of violence and discrimination, people who harbor transphobic beliefs feel even more empowered to cling to them.

However, the promotion of the idea that trans people present a threat to free speech exists on the left as well. After coming under fire for her remarks that trans women and cis women should be treated differently because of their childhood socialization, author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie decried what she refers to as a “language orthodoxy” among liberals. She argued that the left’s insistence on the use of words like “cisgender” and “intersectionality” is not a sign of healthy political evolution, but a tactic for silencing people with dissenting views and closing off debate. Rather than facing up to critique and owning her privilege, Adichie chose the same route as many folks on the right, understanding her speech to have been silenced by the trans community.

Likewise, folks on the left continue to argue that even hateful alt-right trolls like Milo Yiannopolous deserve to have a platform. Despite the fact that Yiannopolous has been known to dangerously out trans students, many liberals still insist that protests against him, including the one at UC Berkeley that caused the university to cancel his speaking engagement, have wrongfully denied his right to free speech. Articles on the New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Guardian — all written by left-leaning white cis men — argued that protestors shutting down Yiannopolous’s speaking engagements were just as bad as fascists and that the “right” way to go about dealing with them would be to have a nice, friendly debate with them. Because, hey, this is America and even fascists and neo-Nazis whose literal objective is to silence and kill minorities should have the right to free speech!

Everyone Who Enabled Milo Yiannopoulos Should’ve Seen This Coming theestablishment.co

These arguments rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of free speech and stand in contradiction with what the original free speech movement that emanated out from Berkeley in the ‘60s set out to achieve; namely, to make sure that marginalized people were granted the full right to free speech accorded to them by the Constitution. Instead, arguments from both sides aim to uplift the voices of those who hold an incredible amount of power: cisgender people.

Politics is rooted in discourse and debate. Because we don’t all agree on everything, we have to have space to argue, to come to decisions, and to push for progress. We have to be able to invent new language to describe our experiences and we have to be able to call out privilege, power, and oppression for what they are.

But that doesn’t mean that this is always going to manifest as polite, emotionless conversation. How many people could we expect to behave calmly when their right to full personhood is being called into question? Would you not be driven to anger, to vandalism, to protest in the face of the denial of your literal humanity? Are these not, in fact, viable forms of political action and discourse?

The Left’s Long History Of Transphobia Trans discrimination isn’t an invention of the right wing. Liberals have been perfecting it for years.theestablishment.co

If Adichie came under serious fire for her comments, it was not because she was being denied the platform to disseminate her opinion, but rather that enough people disagreed with her transphobic remarks to call attention to the flaws in her argument and, ultimately, to shut it down.

If Yiannopolous’s speech at Berkeley was cancelled, that doesn’t mean that he was denied his right to free speech. We all know he had been given a substantial platform, at least up until he crossed the line with that pedophilia remark. Rather, it means that there were enough people at Berkeley who would not tolerate his vitriol that they felt the need to make it near impossible for him to speak at that one particular time and location.

If the “Free Speech Bus” was prevented from easy passage across the United States, it was because its message was so cruel and intolerable that allowing it to be disseminated freely in the name of “free speech” was simply not an option.

And get this. All of these people continue to have a platform, continue to have plenty of media in which to express themselves. They are not literally being denied their right to free speech. There’s a big difference between that dystopian reality and being strongly dissuaded from continuing to speak by those who are affected by the issues at hand.

There’s a big difference between denying free speech and being strongly dissuaded from continuing to speak by those who are affected by the issues at hand.

The resistance to these anti-trans campaigns would not have happened if a vast and vocal opposition did not exist. And that community is not limited to transgender people, who, admittedly, make up a tiny percentage of the population. Estimates suggest that there are six transgender Americans for every 994 cis people. If we did not speak up for ourselves boldly, fiercely, and passionately, transphobic vitriol would still be circulating freely just as it has for decades, if not centuries. If we did not have the backing of accomplices, this pushback would not be happening to the extent that it is.

Free speech does not mean anything goes. There’s a reason why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, or why hiring an assassin to kill someone does not fall under the purview of free speech. These words can and do enact harm on others.

This includes language that suggests that trans women are not women, like those displayed on the side of that orange bus. It may not seem as direct as speaking the words “I want you to kill so and so,” but it might as well be, because this ideology makes trans women (especially those of color), and to a lesser extent other trans and gender non-conforming people, vulnerable to potentially fatal violence. It allows people to continue to hold the transmisogynist idea that trans women are men, who against the patriarchal system that upholds the superiority of masculinity, have chosen femininity, and that their womanhood is an act of deception. And it is these ideas that directly produce disproportionate violence against trans women.

The reason why transgender people are being systematically targeted for violence and discrimination while transphobic people are not is a substantial power differential. Trans people are already denied the right to free speech, and often, the right to even exist in public space. Transphobic people, however, are permitted to outwardly express transphobic and transmisogynistic views without significant threat to their livelihood because these views are propped up by powerful institutions, including the U.S. government.

Deadnaming A Trans Person Is Violence — So Why Does The Media Do It? Make no mistake: This rhetoric is harmful.theestablishment.co

In reality, what has happened is that trans people have done the seemingly insurmountable work of passionately and persuasively arguing our humanity. We have, after decades of fervent political labor, begun to circulate language that feels more accurate to our experience and that makes space for our oppressors to acknowledge their privileged positionality — and that is threatening to those who have long been in power.

But anyone with even a fraction of a heart can see that this is no threat at all. We have actualized ourselves, both materially and linguistically. Our words, our protests are rather an act of opening, of expansion, of world building set to liberate us all from a system that limits our scope and our sense of possibility.

via The Establishment - Medium

[somedayslater]

Hey i was the anon here !! (sorry abt the BL blog lol, its an old one i found back but the characters limit in ask is annoying). And thanks for the answer !! With this answer and the answers of the other asks, I think I know where you’re coming from and I understand it ! I still kind of disagree tho.

One of the ask was about how its important to make a distinction between radfem and terf and I totally agree. Radfem are feminists, in that they strive to improve the status of women by putting emphasis on the material conditions of gender and think all discriminations come back to misogyny. By now, I think any serious feminists can agree that radfem are missing several important points and their opinion is misguided by the fact they’re more interested in the improvement of THEIR conditions (most often middle and upper class, white, abled, cis women) than the conditions of all women. Its doesnt negate the fact most of them know what they are talking about and know about the feminist theoretical bases even if they’re deeply wrong and late. Also, even if their belief system is prone to transphobia, it doesnt mean all radfem are transphobic - you can even meet radfem trans people (TIRF) on here and feel sorry for whatever happens in their head that cause them so much self-hate.

TERF on the other hand, is becoming a catch-all term than most ppl dont even know the meaning of. For lot of ppl now terf just mean “i hate trans ppl”, even people who call themselves TERF ! Like you said, now lot of ppl use the term TERF just as an excuse to be transphobic. in their blogs, you dont see any feminist discussions (even radfem ones), just transphobia. And if they lie about being feminist to be transphobic, you can be sure lot of them lie about having been traumatized by men to justify their transphobia too. So when I see TERF talking about their trauma and how thats what motivating their belief I’m always REALLY suspicious -saying you hate trans women because you have been traumatized by penis sure seem more ok than saying you just want trans women to die bc it makes you uncomfortable. It has the bonus effect of either making ppl lose time to acknowledge your trauma and making the conversation about you and how you are the real victim, or accusing people who are not acknowledging your trauma to not care about women trauma, being misogynist and bou-hou. It’s weaponizing your (cis) privilege to steal the platform of victimhood. And honestly it makes me think of white women crying and accusing black men of rape when things dont go their way -same technique. That’s why I think saying again and again that some terf are transphobic bc of trauma is a really bad idea long-term and can be detrimental for the feminist and trans movement, and for trans ppl’s mental health specifically (i hope i dont come as condescending and knowing better whats good for you lol, its obv your blog so you put wtv you want on it and its obv your life so you know better whats good for you too, but for me at least as a transie i really dont want ppl to tell me that the ppl who wants to kill me just bc i exist is bc of the “original sin” of my gender and that i should be understanding of them).

Ok im so sorry for the long post bc im going to continue since im too lazy to make another one lol. About the other asks about how terf space are cult-y, prey on existing trauma and vulnerability and all -> Once again I totally agree with you and the anon, the terf rabbithole is definitely a cult doing all that. But all bigot groups do that, so we can definitely compare them to other bigot groups ! Arent incels a cult who prey on the loneliness of men traumatized by toxic masculinity ? Arent white supremacists a cult who prey on the loneliness of white people traumatized by capitalism (the end of social and non-productive relationships) ?

Its always the same trick.

The group who have the REAL privileges aims to create discord in the group who doesnt have it. It creates discord by essentializing social norms and group (”POC/jewish are savages/greedy/what-have-you!!”=white supremacists or “trans women are men and men are violent rapist!!”=terf or “men are strong and reliable and women are weak and soft and queers are depraved!!”=incel) ; by assigning false privileges (”POC/jewish have secretly all the powers and are manipulating the media!!” or “trans women use their male privilege to invade women space and fetishize us!!” or “women use their charm to control men !!”) ; by inventing conspiracies (”POC/jewish wants to erase the white race we are under siege!!” or “trans women wants to erase the real women we are under siege!!” or “women and queer wants to erase real men we are under siege!! Queers wants to rape children!!”). So, instead of having workers of color and white workers fighting together against capitalists ; instead of having trans and cis women fighting against the patriarchy ; instead of having queers and men fighting against heteronormativity or toxic masculinity… we have the people who have slightly more privilege in the same group fighting against their peers, and nothing change.

<- I’m obviously schematizing a lot and i know other theorists have said this better than i have. I also dont want to put intent in this system : i honestly dont think all capitalists know races are bullshits and are consciously creating them to keep privileges ; and i honestly dont think all men know patriarchy is bullshit and are consciously contributing to it to keep their privilege. Its a self-sustaining system where every actor, not matter on what side of the barrier they are, is in good faith. Most of the time.

(Though its funny its always the same companies/advocates/doctors who keep lobbying against queers and women rights, against civil rights, for war, against free education and health system… i know its a system but im pretty sure some actors are more cynical than others).

And everybody in every of those group is honestly traumatized and sincerely believes the other part of the group is down to kill them, rape them, erase their culture, etc. Its doesnt make it more true, and treating their belief as anything else than delusion is at best a waste of time and at worst dangerous. 

We live in a world where it’s disturbingly easy for men to abuse or rape women without consequences, yes. It’s right to say that a lot of women are mistrustful and fearful of men, because their experiences and their education taught them it was a wise thing to do. But you cant tell me that anyone can honestly confuse a cis man with a trans woman. I’m trans and when I see a trans person, especially a trans woman, I instinctually cringe because of how out-of-the-norm she looks (and it breaks my heart to feel that, believe me). Look, I’ve been gay all my life but when I see a man acting just a tad bit not-masculine in a hetero-setting (aka most of settings) I cringe too. Gender roles and queerphobia are so ingrained in us that the gayest person on earth is going to feel something is wrong (in the sense of out-of-norm) when someone is even slightly gender non-conforming. There’s this funny post about how primary school bullies are the best at diagnosing you with gay -right before punching you- and its funny bc its true. To put it blandly, I dont think Im wrong when I say nobody is going to see a trans woman and honestly confuse her with a cis man ; at best they’re going to think she’s a woman (so putting her in the same danger as a cis woman), or they’re going to think there’s something wrong with them (so putting them in more danger than a cis woman).

And terf honestly want us to believe them when they say they feel threatened by trans women bc of a legitimate reason like past trauma inflicted by a man ? When nobody in our society can confuse trans women and cis men ? When they literally have to harass women in the toilet to see what’s in their pants to know if they’re those malicious trans women ? I call that bullshit. It’s not what’s happening, it never was what was happening. They feel threatened by trans people because their transphobia and cisnormativity core belief make them instantaneously feel something is wrong. Instead of working on that and thinking about why they think its wrong and deconstructing their destructive beliefs, they prefer to double down on their prejudice and use whatever excuse to justify their discomfort. An excuse where they got to be the real victim is just the cherry on the top (once again, no conscious effort or intent on their part in that).

Terf can be honestly traumatized by men, but they putting the blame on another group (trans women) cant be taken seriously. White women can honestly be traumatized by men, but they putting the blame on another group (black or other poc) cant be taken seriously. White & poor workers can honestly be traumatized by capitalists/capitalism, but they putting the blame on another group (immigrants, poor ppl from other countries) cant be taken seriously. We have to stay focused on the real problem and the real culprits because giving in to their delusions (encouraged, fabricated by society delusions, but still delusions) is a step back.

Really sorry about this long ass post lol, in any case (if you’re still reading lol) i really think your blog is cool and im happy bc i see ppl coming forward asking you difficult questions that are essential and you taking the time and the respect to answer them seriously. i feel like more and more ppl dont dare to ask questions bc of the fear of being mocked, ridiculed, or insulted, and now ppl dont understand feminism or trans questions because anything else than posting memes abt “being trans rules” or “being trans sucks” is an attack on their group… thats how we have “trans allies” parroting radfem points without realizing i guess. so i really hope i dont come as adversary in this post bc i honestly mostly agree with u lol, im just really interested in talking about stuff. Thank you for your time (─‿‿─) 

(also my english can be weird i think, i hope i still spoke clearly :U )

(also i follow from afar but like without an account so thats why im not a follower, but if i was active on SM id definitely be :D )

.

Hello i love ur blog !! BUT honestly it makes me feel uncomfortable u keep saying some terfs are transphobic bc of trauma. Its the reason they use bc they know its more hearable than "i hate trans bc i benefit from the statu quo of being cis/dont like ppl who are not in the norms/etc". Some of them may believe it, but its sounds the same as racists who say "i hate black ppl bc ive been mugged by them/arabic ppl bc once an arab stole my stuff". Its BS n in bad faith, why give it a platform ?

Ok first of all, there are a couple steps in between someone experiencing that trauma and becoming a transphobe. Generally, from what I've seen, radfem circles are full of women who have been deeply traumatized by their experiences with men and radfem rhetoric around men speaks to them. Once they're in there long enough the transphobia seems completely reasonable.

Secondly I need to make it clear that just because someone has a trauma response associated with their bigotry that doesn't make it ok or mean they should be treated with kid gloves like they're still being a bigot.

[designcontextsbh-blog]

Response: The Representation of Sexuality and Relationships in Games

Games have a unique opportunity when creating characters because they don’t have to rely on physical acting so they can create a character to be any race or gender and find the voice actor that fits. The issue with this is that developers tend to create characters that appeal to what they believe is their largest audience, so straight white males are a popular character for games. It seems like deviating from the norm and introducing alternative character types opens up a world of fear that it will polarise too many players. For instance, 2013 was branded as the year of the female protagonist because there was a total of 3 big games announced that had a female protagonist: Tomb Raider, Bayonetta 2 and Beyond Two Souls, then Call of Duty decided they would include female characters in their upcoming multiplayer for Call of Duty: Ghosts. The industry and players rejoiced that finally there would be more females in games, well, the male ones did at least. It seems that people in the majority think that having one or two characters that fit into a minority automatically makes everything more diverse. A few gay characters here, a female protagonist there and maybe just for kicks they won’t all be white. That’s not how diversity works. Having one character in one game that fits into a minority doesn’t suddenly eradicate the massive amount of sexism, racism, homophobia or transphobia that exists. With realism and immersion becoming more popular we see some developers scrambling to implement romance systems and making the most stereotypical LBGTQ+ characters ever seen, like repeating the ‘year of the female protagonist’ with less effort. The problem is you can’t really get away with butchering things that we experience in real life without anyone noticing.

Developers don’t seem to know how to handle increasing the amount of LBGTQ+ characters in their games, instead of looking at the competition and standing out from the crowd they seem to rely on the same old character types. A lot of games work with a pre-made character, they tell the story of a character the studio has created that the player will follow on their journey. They tend to have a limited opportunity to express much in terms of sexuality and relationships due to the story taking priority over the few characters that the player interacts with. But it seems that they constantly waste the few opportunities they do have by choosing the majority over and over again. Even games with large casts with the option to pursue a relationship arc seem to struggle with sexuality. Take Bioware’s massive RPG franchises Mass Effect and Dragon Age, even though their romance subplots are a big draw for players, they still keep the homosexuality to the bare minimum. One gay option is available for each gender, one bisexual option and the rest are either straight or non- romanceable. It seems a wasted opportunity to have such a strong system and then limit the options for any players that want to create an LBGTQ+ character. As levels of realism in games increase, so should the diversity of the characters we play.

In an interview with games journalist Kate Gray, she highlighted how allowing players freedom and full immersion are important to players “If games want to have full immersion, and are already aimed at adults, I think it’s hugely important. I don’t think every game needs sexuality and relationships … but I also think that, if you’re going to include it, it should be done properly… Romance is so personal that it’s vital to have options that cover the majority of your players.” This is all very true, not every game you play should have you romancing everything that moves or trying to tackle the massive issue of sexuality but maybe some more should. If even one game this year attempts to portray such issues in a way we’ve never seen, we’d notice a huge difference in how we speak about it.

The intimacy of relationships may be hard to translate into a 40-hour game and not just feel like a lecture on how to they should work but a few developers appear to want to avoid even trying to portray something real. Bioware once again comes up short in the representation department. Simply pick the right options in conversation, do their loyalty mission and you will unlock the ultimate ‘prize’ for game relationships – sex. In the later entries in their two biggest franchises, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, there is an attempt to portray platonic relationships between the player and the NPC characters but it still seems to suggest it won’t take more to become more than friends. But as Gray pointed out, that’s not how it works “Friendship doesn’t have a “win state” like romance does - sex - and though I obviously disagree with sex being a “prize”, I can see how it’s easy to gamify. That doesn’t exist with friendship, which is more of a sliding scale.” But for games, the focus is always set on winning the prize in every category including relationships. There are varying degrees of these prizes of course: for Mass Effect, it is a sex scene while in Harvest Moon it is a baby. Even though it may seem odd to compare a SC-FI action RPG to a farming game, their idea of using “friendship as a step to romance” is always the same - do or say the right thing for a little while and you will win that prize every time. That may make perfect sense for games, they aren’t exactly the most realistic forms of entertainment, I can become the ultimate warrior or a highly skilled spy by sliding a disc into the tray but just because people want to escape when playing a game doesn’t mean they don’t want something real in it. Expressing ourselves is a massive part of life and games, we can customise the character’s hair, voice, clothes, skills – the list is endless really. Sometimes though, you may want to make a character that reflects you as a person and without something as basic as sexuality you won’t really ever get to have that choice.

There are so many players that are underrepresented in games today as developers still play into the white straight male-centric view that people have of the world. So many people are LBGTQ+ these days that the choice to exclude them makes no sense. Developers are missing out on strong characters, world building and storytelling because the fear of being boycotted by the loud minority of homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic and racists who will make it their mission to have your game tank is stronger than the need to represent people who will still pick up your game and play it.

Fable is a great example of a game that implements sexuality so subtly you might not even notice it. When you are walking around in any Fable RPG you might notice some hearts above NPC’s heads, they indicate that they are in love with you. Look closer and you will find some above both women and men, in the second and third instalment pulling the left trigger will bring up some more information and you will find that Albion is filled with gay, lesbian and bisexual people. It makes the world feel more real and although Fable doesn’t have a big focus on relationships, it allows the player the choice and that is the big difference. It is done in a way that you can completely ignore it and just focus on the main story or you can decide to start a family with whoever you choose.

In the past 50 years expressing yourself as an individual has slowly become an integral part of life, it allows people a freedom that was never explored before. Dye your hair, dress how you like, listen to whatever music you like, date who you want to. It has all become so common place that most people wouldn’t bat an eye at someone with neon blue hair walking down the street. However, we are still faced with bigotry in regards to race, gender and sexuality in a world that preaches acceptance. Where this acceptance has flourished is in the forms of escapism we live our lives surrounded in. TV, movies, music, the internet and games all offer a few hours of being cut off from the world, of experiencing new things and broadening our horizons through someone else’s eyes. Take RuPaul’s Drag Race as an example of a TV show that opened people up to the niche world of drag. It showed how much of a market there is for simple expression of self in a time where people are still attacked for who they love or how they dress. And since Hollywood and big TV companies crumble under the protests of close-minded people, wouldn’t games be the perfect place to allow someone to express themselves within a fictional world? To experience the struggles faced by people under attack for being themselves through the safety of a computer screen? It is sad to see such an amazing industry that can create entire fantasy universes shy away from problems faced by so many of their consumers.

That being said, games are a wonderful thing. They tell stories, create universes and let you escape into a fantasy at the push of a button. But they lack in an area that has become so important and so fundamental in the last few years that they are quickly coming under fire from their dedicated players. Representation is an overlooked issue in every entertainment industry these days that the excuses we hear are becoming so predictable it’s almost laughable. The highest rated TV shows and movies this year? Probably starring the same straight white guys we’ve been watching for years. The artists taking home the most awards at the big music events? I can name the top five of them without even trying to think about it. This year’s biggest games? Well hopefully in the industry that creates its own stars, maybe we’ll get to see a few surprises this time around. It isn’t that every game needs to have a gay, trans ethnic lead to be inclusive – far from it in fact - but maybe if just here and there we got something a little different than what we’ve seen a million times before, then we can be proud to say that we include people for who they are when everyone else is pretending there isn’t an issue.

References:

Please note that throughout this response I didn’t access outside material other than game names and my interview with Kate Gray. Therefore these references are purely games that I mentioned.

Tomb Raider. 2013. [computer game]. Crystal Dynamics

Bayonette 2. 2014. [computer game]. Wii U. Platinum Games

Beyond Two Souls. 2013 [computer game]. Quantic Dream

Call of Duty: Ghosts. 2013 [computer game]. Infinity Ward

Dragon Age. 2009. [computer game]. Bioware

Mass Effect. 2007. [computer game]. Bioware

Harvest Moon. 1996. [computer game]. Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Amccus

Fable. 2004. [computer game]. Xbox. Lionhead Studios

RuPaul’s Drag Race. 2009. [tv show]. World of Wonder