#when you make that claim you're still excluding women

[the-lark-ascending69]

I think you're failing to realize any public space (such as a fanfiction website) can be a valuable object of cultural analysis. I don't think it's intellectually honest to say "it's not a space for political debate or social justice", because "politics" (social problems) are present and visible in any segment of the social web.

I also think it's reductionist to see it as "shaming" people for writing more M/M. The problem isn't any one individual writing M/M more than F/F. The problem is the extreme difference in numbers. It's logical to wonder about the reason behind that, and and a silently mysogynist fandom culture is the easiest explanation. People will often claim male characters are just more interesting in most media, but that doesn't explain why M/M still predominates in fandoms of shows where female characters are just as well-developed if not more than the male characters. It doesn't explain why male characters tend to be the fan favorites in shows predominantly female-led, or the double standards in character analysis. Of course there's nothing wrong for liking a male character. Of course it's perfectly fine if your OTP is M/M, this isn't a case of personal responsability or "doing your part" by deliberately balancing all of your M/M ships with more F/F ships. The tendency is the thing.

*This poll was submitted to us and we simply posted it so people could vote and discuss their opinions on the matter. If you’d like for us to ask the internet a question for you, feel free to drop the poll of your choice in our inbox and we’ll post them anonymously (for more info, please check our pinned post).

[boreal-sea]

Radfem Trans People

I want to talk about the different flavors of radical feminist trans people I have personally encountered, because the ways radical feminist / terf / gender critical rhetoric bleeds into trans discourse is fascinating to me. There are very few trans radfems, but they do exist, and how they internalize radical feminism varies.

At the core of radical feminism is bioessentialism: this needs to exist for radfem philosophy to make sense. Males have to be biologically stronger, females have to be biologically inferior, these differences must affect your personality, and they must be immutable differences that carry on even if the person is trans.

Radfem transfemmes believe that men/males are inherently bad, but that most of the badness of males/men is attached to the "man" part and socialization, and that if you are not a man, you're fine. BUT, they aren't totally divorced from the bioessentialism of radfems, because they do still believe that a transmasc who starts taking testosterone "becomes" dangerous and predatory. They also believe transmascs are "inherently transmisogynistic" and for some reason more "prone" to transmisogyny than literally anyone else on the planet.

There is a group of radfem transmascs who are the transmasc equivalent of radfem transfemmes. They believe most of what the radfem transfemmes believe, with with some minor tweaks. They believe men, regardless of birth sex, are always two seconds away from turning into monsters and must thus constantly be kept in check. They also believe that as transmascs, they are exempt from misogyny of all forms and have privilege over women of all kinds.

But, there is another flavor of radfem transmasc. This second group of radfem transmascs are basically indistinguishable from cis women radfems. They are full-blown male-haters and transmisogynists. They hate males and transfemmes so much. They believe transfemmes were "socialized male" and are still "male", that transfemmes are "predatory" and "dominate" trans spaces, etc. Every negative stereotype associated with men/males, these radfem transmascs attach to transfemmes.

Oh and nonbinary trans folks can fit into any of these groups, as well. Being nonbinary doesn't exclude you from turning into a bigot nor does it exempt you from being targeted by bigots!

Some trans radfems (of all varieties) also believe that trans men didn't experience misogyny or sexism as children - even if we didn't know we were trans at the time, even if we fully viewed ourselves as cis girls. And in some cases, these radfem trans people claim that even if transmascs weren't out and didn't know we were trans, we still somehow experienced "male socialization". Apparently all the misogyny and sexism we experienced retroactively disappears when we come out.

[redheadbigshoes]

"Male lesbians and lesboys do no harm" if I'm in a space designated for lesbians and other sapphics to meet and a MAN hits on me I'm going to feel so, so, so, so, so unsafe and violated. I don't care how you dress it up as you "feeling queer" or whatever. You are not out allies, you are not our community, you're predatory men using progressive language to mask your predatory intentions and pressure lesbians into accepting you in, otherwise they're "evil terfs and exclusionists".

It's a certain kind of insidious misogyny. Pressuring your way into a minority group or they'll be considered a bad woman a bad lesbian. Pressuring them at the threat of a hate campaign when lesbians and women in particular have ALWAYS been at a higher level of scrutiny, given less chances to "mess up". Threatening them with hate so that they shut up about the discomfort. So they shut up and accept men.

They weaponize it. They're using the belief that "lesbians are inherently terfs", something that is widely believed but simply untrue at the presence of trans women lesbians and nonbinary lesbians, to their advantage. "I'll dress up my words pretty, say 'no, it's not homophobic for a man to call himself a lesbian, it's actually regressive to deny me anything', and when we don't sit down and accept it, they call upon a bias and a hate campaign.

The vile attitude that comes from calling lesbians exclusionary and bad for not being attracted to men is the same that comes from the men against the me too movements, the kind where men get upset when a woman refuses sex for whatever reason, the same kind where a woman turns down a man at the bar.

It denies an autonomy, a right for a sexual group to exist outside of an oppressive force. Lesbians have long found a freedom when they realize they don't have to live that life with a man, that they don't have to think about marrying one or kissing one or living that life (And of course the incredible love of women is a factor, I can go on about that for ages, but another time).

To claim men can be lesbians is tying up those patriarchal boots and stomping on that. "No, those evil women cannot exclude me, they can't live outside of me, and they're evil because they think they can."

"That woman cannot live outside of me, otherwise she's just some slutty bitch for worse men"

"Women cannot make spaces unavailable to men."

"Women cannot be unavailable to men."

Different hues, but the color wheel is still a circle, huh?

You said it all so well. I couldn’t have said it better.

[deservedgrace]

Am I being petty? My dad is always saying stuff like “I’m praying for you to be successful” or “god made you perfect”. I know he means well but it’s so uncomfortable whenever he does those things. I don’t want you to pray for me, I need real help. You don’t know the real me and you probably wouldn’t be as proud if you did. He still thinks I’m the perfect Christian boy instead of an atheist who’s figuring out their gender. He claims to love and support whatever I want, but he always leaves out being a girl when listing off topics, and has questioned me at random times about trans athletes when I’m too tired to think of an answer.

In my opinion, absolutely not.

I was actually just talking about the prayer thing with my friend last night. So many christians use prayer as almost a silencing method, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When I left the church I realized just how abysmal my comforting/supporting methods were because while I was in the church, I and everyone around me relied on cutting uncomfortable topics short with "well I'll be praying for you" or ask to pray with you about it, and offer literally NO other support while also expecting prayer to, just fix it magically. Hilariously, the same people that are always like, "god's not a genie, you're praying wrong if you're expecting him to answer every prayer you have" seem to ask for and expect genie-like responses from him while doing NO work of their own to support the people they're praying for. Prayer is Very Very often used as a substitute for support. Even when I was deep in the church it never felt sufficient, but I couldn't say anything because it was supposed to be sufficient and if it wasn't sufficient that was a problem with me and my "sinful nature". Churches and christians that focus on prayer over actually being the hands and feet of jesus (fucking doing something about it) aren't fostering proper community and support. They're fostering a culture of not being able to talk about difficult things, of suffering in silence, and of relying on a silent and unprovable god which often results in being taught to rely solely on yourself.

I really feel for you with the gender thing. I don't know the full context of your specific situation but I see "god made you perfect" used to silence any notion of being trans far, far too often. The implication being, being cis is the default, being trans is going against who "god made you to be", etc. I've noticed this especially of christians who believe in complementarianism (men and women have different roles to fulfill), many of them tend to "love and support whoever you are"........ so long as it falls into their tiny box of what they deem acceptable. I don't want to turn this into a whole thing about gender but even in a worldview that doesn't recognize the existence of trans people, there isn't a definition of womanhood that includes every woman and excludes every non-woman and vice versa for men ("a woman is someone who can have babies" excludes those with infertility issues, something that affects up to 20% of women, "a woman is someone who has XX chromosomes" excludes intersex women, "a woman is someone who has a uterus" excludes women who have had hysterectomies, "a woman is someone who has had a uterus at SOME point" excludes women that simply born without one, which happens to about 1 in 5000 based on a quick google, etc etc). My point being, they're trying to draw these confining and limiting boxes where they can't. Humans don't work like that. Their idea of perfection is something that is simply biologically and sociologically and historically unsupported. Gender is complicated because humans are complicated. It's disappointing that some people can't see the beauty in that and it's devastating that it often causes so much pain and suffering to those around them.

I really hope you're able to find proper support. If possible, I encourage you to (safely!!!) continue exploring your gender. And it makes complete sense that you'd feel uncomfortable about these things. Prayer without proper support is skirting responsibility at best. Tearing down trans athletes and doing the christian "god made you perfect" thing with the implication of cis being the default is not a supportive environment to be around. I'm not going to be able to remember the quote verbatim but one of my favorite god/trans quotes is something along the lines of "god made trans people for the same reason he made wheat but not bread and grapes but not wine; so humanity may share in the act of creation". I'm not necessarily encouraging this as a "gotcha" statement, I can hear in my head exactly how my church would respond to that. But outside the church I think it's a beautiful reframe despite me not believing in god anymore. And if you would prefer something less religiously related: I'm deeply sorry you're not in a supportive environment. There's nothing wrong with you. As far as I can tell you're having a very normal reaction to the shit you're having to put up with and the situation you're in.

[elfowl-42]

Just accidentally reblogged a "Gender critical" "radfem" post about "Why can't pro-trans people define "what is a woman" without being sexist, why it is so hard to say 'adult human female'." Because I genuinely thought it was a pro-trans take, and had to re-read it, to get what they were actually trying to say. Because yes, to me I am female, I am a woman. I would say that I fit the definition "Adult human female." We disagree so fully on the definitions of words that we would say the exact same things and mean something completely different.

I do not understand what is sexist about saying "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman" It is literally treating all biological sexes the same. It's more inclusive since it includes intersex people. Do they think it's sexist because I'm saying "Anyone can be a woman but only biological males can be men"? Because I don't think that. My definition of a man is "Someone who identifies as a man."

There are women born with penises, and I'm not even talking about people with XY chromosomes who transition, I'm talking about people with XX chromosomes, who have both the phenotype and genotype to look perfectly female, but for whatever reason they have a penis instead of a vagina. They grow up being seen as a girl, facing the same misogyny and social pressures as any other AFAB person in our society. Why would anyone tell them that they aren't a woman that their experience is invalid, that they don't belong to this group, because of a few cubic inches of flesh?

This same person was claiming that the term "Lesbian" is being destroyed by people claiming that lesbians can like people with penises. As far as I know, lesbian is defined as "A woman who is sexually attracted to other women." If the woman from the example above is sexually attracted to women, why would you try to exclude her from the spaces designed to protect and nurture people like her? Do you think she should be forced into male exclusive spaces? Do you really want to throw intersex people under the bus, just to be able to exclude trans women because they haven't been seen as women their whole lives?

I know that I have benefitted from male privilege for most of my life, and still do whenever I decide to go out en masc, since I pass as cis. I mostly likely still benefit from it somewhat when I go out en fem, since I don't pass as female yet. I'm trying my best to stop benefitting from that privilege whenever it is safe to do so. (I'll readily admit to trying to hold onto it when it comes to situations where it's a matter of safety. I hope you won't begrudge me that, I understand if you do, but that does make you an asshole. I wish I could give you that same safety) And it is my responsibility to support the voices of my sisters when I can on issues that don't affect me. To not talk over them, and to raise up their views and voices on abortion, mensuration and mensural products, birth control, the wage gap, and women's rights.

Please don't misconstrue this as me saying "I'm a woman so all lesbians have to be attracted to me." because they don't. Everyone is allowed to not be attracted to other people for any reason. It's not something we can control (or do you say that sexual attraction is a choice now?) If you're not attracted to penises specifically, that's fine, if you're not attracted to me specifically, that's fine. If you're not attracted to trans people specifically, I'd ask you to make sure it's not because of a misconception of us as a threat, or any less of our gender than cis people, but if not, that's perfectly fine. But womanhood is not defined solely by biology. No one is not a lesbian because they're attracted to me, and I'm not not a lesbian because of how I was born. Or do you really want to go back to the misogynistic idea that all a woman is is a vagina, a womb, and a pair of tits?

[roughstar]

We need to talk about intersectionality again.

I see a lot of people debate on here about transphobia/homophobia/misogyny/etc. but a lot of the time while they may disagree on some things the general consensus is things like misandry and white racism aren't real because men/white people aren't an identity (as in they're invisible, people don't say they're proud whites or proud men without sounding incredibly bigoted). This is wrong. Flat out. Incorrect. If me saying "white people is not an identity" upset you, then good, you understand at least a little. Because it is actually an identity that people can identify as without having to feel guilty about it.

But here's the big thing, people have more than one identity. People can be black AND gay and their experience will be unique based on experiences they share with similar black people and gay people, but not all of their experiences will be shared from either group. This is easy enough to understand. So then when we have white gay people, do they only get to claim experiences from the gay community? No, we all know and understand this. Their experiences come from being white AND gay AND every other identity they have. Because people all aren't just one thing, even those people who make one thing their whole identity. They still experience things from all the other identities they have at all times.

This is kinda what makes Taylor Swift's version of feminism tone deaf for a lot of other feminists, because she's experiencing misogyny from a high class perspective while most of us aren't high class. This is why intersectionality is important.

But earlier I said that things like misandry and white racism are real, even though most of Tumblr is programmed to believe they're not despite being super liberal, TERF, far-right conservative, or basically anywhere else on the political spectrum. (Because "oppressors" cannot suffer from bigotry or some shit). Here's the thing, if you believe gender is a social construct, the patriarchy is a social construct too so the oppression is a reflection of that society. News flash, not every society is the same. Some cultures experience stronger identity roles than others, with all sorts of power imbalances built in and people in those cultures can and do fight any kind of imbalance they find unfair all the time. Ours is no different.

So why would we then purposefully exclude usage of words for particular instances of societal bigotry based on our own subjective understanding of our own society? I bet some of you would say things like "but I'm not part of another society, I'm a part of this western colonial society rooted in Europe and the Americas" or "because you're full of shit and this power imbalance is singular/universal". But, for the first point, how would we then accurately describe an observation from another culture, or describe such an observation to someone of that culture? For instance, if we were talking about misogyny/misandry to say the Amazon women, they may feel just as strongly that misogyny isn't a thing as we do about misandry, that men and women being assholes to other women is always an individual issue and never rooted in the roles of their society. If this were the case, our understanding and communication of these ideas would utterly fail as we've handicapped ourselves into only being able to see other cultures through the lens constructed by our own, with all the same biases and social structures that we ourselves believe to be universally true. This ties well into that second point, which is that such structures are actually NOT universal and believing so is only hindering yourself and your own understanding of them across all cultures.

Another way to think of it is about how malleable we tend to believe they are in the first place. Every time someone says "destroy the patriarchy" we are talking about changing our societal structure. We want to remove gender roles given to men and women which inherently give men power over women (such as making men the typical breadwinners and the head of every household). So why stop here? Why do we only believe and want some aspects of our society to be malleable but others are immutable (sometimes even being the same thing, as in this case, specifically referring to power imbalance between men and women in social structure. Why are we able to "destroy the patriarchy" but men cannot suffer societal injustice, when they both literally are cause-and-effect related)?

And another thing, if someone who is firmly set in their own culture moves into another culture, let's say with their family or whatnot, would they then be forced to change how their family power dynamic is described? Taking the Amazon women as an example again, say that it's typical for men to be like little househusbands there and an Amazon family moves to the US, granted they'd probably be welcomed pretty well here but wouldn't the casual misandry from that Amazon culture still apply in their situation? Would that not still be misandry even if it's in a different culture?

And last point, just because someone develops a strong prejudice against a whole group that's typically known as an oppression group doesn't mean they can't be labeled an appropriate -ism or -phobia for that group. There's an individual prejudice and a societal oppressive structure to each one of those words. You can describe a racist as someone who adheres to racist social structures just as well as someone who innately hates all black people just the same, and we can use context clues to figure out when some individual is described as a specific type of bigot versus just someone maintaining a status quo of societal oppression. And, tying in to intersectionality, every social group or any way to divide/categorize people has a potential for it's own discrimination, as described by a specific -ism or -phobia word. Even if in the context of our own society there is a plain lack of oppression for that group.

[weaver-z]

Sorry, but I don't think a tumblr funnyman should be the be all end all of queer terminology. Did anyone even think to ask multi-label people WHY they might actually prefer contradictory terms? Why they don't just want to switch over to a "better" "more appropriate" "more accurate" term? Also, are there actual examples of multiple terms causing real harm? Or is the "harm" just making people confused or "muddying the waters" (the horror)

I'm guessing this is about my old ass posts about my stance on terms like "bi lesbian." I'll keep this quick (and unrebloggable), since we're probably not super interested in arguing this point for hours.

I have talked to multiple people who identify as bi lesbians. In every case, I've found that their definition of "bi lesbian" is one of three things: a) transphobic, b) lesbophobic and biphobic, or c) questionable, but probably whatever.

The transphobic definition is one that says that any lesbian who is attracted to a gender that isn't "binary cis woman" is a "bi lesbian." Yes, this is a definition I've encountered. I've been smugly told that my attraction to femme and woman-aligned nonbinary people makes me a "bi lesbian." This is not true. The lesbian label has historically included nonbinary lesbians, and saying you're a "bi lesbian" if you're into nb people is gross and transphobic. Some TERFs have even used the term as a self-identifier meaning "I am bisexual but I don't sleep with men," which is doubly gross.

The lesbophobic and biphobic definition occurs when bi women identify as a bi lesbian because they "strongly prefer" women. A bisexual can strongly prefer women and still be bisexual--asserting otherwise is wildly biphobic. Additionally, many lesbians are very hurt by bi lesbians' aggressive disregard for the fact that lesbian is the only mainstream label that excludes men in wlw and nblw attraction. "Bisexual" as a term already exists, and frankly, I think a lot of bi lesbians are suffering from internalized biphobia.

Finally, the last definition is my "eh, whatever" definition: bisexual homoromantics and homosexual biromantics. While I question the validity of using the split attraction model in this way, I think this is the most "valid" reason to identify as a bi lesbian, though frankly I think it's a better idea to stick with a label like "bisexual homoromantic" or "biromantic homosexual" (see my point about the lesbian label above).

Look, obviously I can't control what labels someone uses, so if you truly hate that I find this label weird and uncomfortable (even borderline transphobic/lesbophobic/biphobic), feel free to block me and move on. I am not the authority on the LGBTQ community and never claimed to be; I am simply stating my own beliefs on the matter, beliefs that are shared by a lot of other bi gals, lesbians, and trans women in my life.

Hope this clears some things up. Have a good day.

[femsolid]

Can you please explain why you don't believe that trans women are women? I consider myself a feminist and a strong ally of the LGBTQ+ community, and my own sibling is nonbinary. I make it a point to be accepting, compassionate, and sympathetic towards every identity I come across because doing otherwise has made me miserable. Not because I received hate for not doing so (I got none, at all), but because I began to realize over time that excluding certain people in lieu of supporting others began to feel wrong and counterproductive. I took a look and saw that people who bullied me, who made me feel like an other for my appearance and mannerisms and despised my existence, would do the same to trans women, trans men, nonbinary people, and every other kind of person they didn't understand. When I interacted with people and groups that didn't believe there was more than two genders was such an overlap, such a rabbithole, that went down the path that hated feminism and by extension LGBTQ+.

What I'm trying to say is, even though I can't lie and say I DON'T despise terfs or that I DON'T hate transphobia, I want to be able to understand what leaves you stuck in an ideology I had to grow out of in middle school in order to be happier.

This little juvenile introspection seems to imply that I am a bigot who doesn't like people because they are different than me. I suppose that's what men told you about the big bad wolf they call "terfs". What does the F in terf mean? Ah, yes, Feminist. I am a feminist. So even as you label me a "terf" you are acknowledging that I am a feminist. Therefore my political views on gender ideology have nothing to do with hating people who are different and everything to do with feminism. I do not agree with being called a terf, by the way, but apparently only men get to choose their "identities".

If you're a feminist yourself, why do you think it's okay for people to chant "kill all terfs" knowing that it means that a certain group of feminists must be executed? Does that not seem a tiny bit strange to you? You don't see radical feminists chanting "kill all liberal feminists" do you? Despite the fact that we find you incredibly harmful and hardly feminist. I don't despise you and I don't want you dead. Yet you claim to be the "compassionate" and "accepting" one.

I don't think you know much about feminism and that's fair enough you're still young. But mostly, feminism was kept far away from your generation and instead you learned that people were walking "identities" making free personal choices that should never be questionned. Goddess forbid you try to change things or have a political opinion. Individualism over class consciousness.

So here you are. You saw a post I made about trans activists bullying a feminist to the breaking point (hospitalization), you came here to defend them and have the audacity to claim that you are against bullying? Every day the men you call women send rape threats to women, describe in graphic details how they want to rip us appart, attack us during feminist protests against male violence, send us pornographic pictures, call us misogynistic slurs and you think you've got the moral high ground for siding with these monsters? Do you never even question it? Do you not realize that the minute you step out of line they'll treat you the same? Or do you simply turn a blind eye on all of this and truly believe that the men who claim to be women are precious little victims oppressed by the evil feminazis who just hate them because they wear dresses? How stupid do you think we are? We know what bullying feels like, we know what discrimination is, how could we not? We are women after all. Mostly lesbian, bisexual, gender non conforming women. And survivors of prostitution, pornography, domestic abuse, rape, ableism, racism, child abuse and so on. We are women and we are feminists. We know full well what persecution feels like.

Now I can tell you why I think men are not women:

I do not believe in this religious dichotomy between mind and body. I don't think there's your body, and then there's your real self, separated from the real tangible world. We are bodies. Your body is you. Everything you feel, everything you think, everything you know is through your body. That's all that you have, that's all that you are and that's a perfectly acceptable situation. I don't believe in gendered minds, gendered souls, gendered spirits, gendered essences or gendered identities. I don't think that if you believe hard enough that you are of the opposite sex you then become it. I think gender ideology is a spiritual belief. I think it requires blind faith on your part to see a man, to know it's a man and yet to claim it's a woman, though you're most likely pretending to believe it just to spare his feelings, which are oh so easily hurt, conveniently.

I think the idea that white american men are martyrs oppressed by women is a joke. I think they promote sexist stereotypes and are misogynists. I don't think "I always knew I was a girl because even as a child I would play with dolls and make-up" is a progressive statement, do you? I think it's appalling that if you tell a man to stop the mansplaining, to stop oppressing women, to get the hell out of women's space, all he has to do is claim not to be a man, to be "non binary" and then you have to shut your mouth and crawl under his feet. I think well meaning people, who want to appear progressive and compassionate, are feeding an anti-feminist backlash. I think in reality you are encouraging gender non conforming people to feel like we are inadequate and need to change our bodies in order to fit in or we'll kill ourselves, according to you. I think you are encouraging an obsession with image and perfection. I think you are pushing kids into the arms of unscrupulous cosmetic surgeons, therapists and doctors who will gladly fuck up their health and diagnose them as trans for not conforming to sexist stereotypes or for being homosexuals. I think you should listen to destransitioners. I think you should stop letting men define womanhood, define feminism, define what you should think or say, define which women are good and which women are witches that must be hunted down. I think if men applaud your feminism then there is a problem. I think if white american men become the center of your activism while women and girls are massacred for their sex worldwide then your activism is worthless.

[iamafanofcartoons]

I haaaaate hate hate hate how people said Hazel's redemption arc made sense and Emerald's didn't?

I'd argue Hazel's does still make sense ofc but it's sooooo telling to me how ppl love his and hates hers.

Esp bc, imo, hers makes MORE sense?? We saw hints of it from volume THREE come on

If you want a short example, here's a screenshot by somebody on Twitter who noticed an annoying trend.

Here's the link if you're curious. https://twitter.com/spicybinch/status/1582743854477778944 Me personally?

I've noticed THIS particular issue.

Ruby Rose: Tries actively and super hard to always do the right thing and respect people’s choices.

RWBY Critics: OMG She’s so boring, come back when you have a personality.

Ruby Rose, Blake Belladonna, Robyn Hill: Makes human mistakes, proving both are complex character with flaws, capable of evolving.

EruptionFang, Vexed Viewer, their followers: OMG See? She’s not a saint, she was a horrible person all along, idk why people act like she’s a good person, she should burn in hell.

And then we have the straight white guys who are the villains in RWBY. Yes, I'm excluding Hazel for this one because Unlike Roman, Adam, and Ironwood? Hazel takes accountability for his actions, tries to make amends, and shows actual regret...so already we see that like Emerald, he is given more of a chance of redemption than the three.

Roman Torchwick and Adam Taurus : Does awful things willingly, consistently and without reason, and may make jokes about hurting people in general.

EruptionFang and The RWBY Rewrite folks: OMG he’s so funny and hot. I love bad boys/villains/bad people. They MUST be morally grey, cause they're so cool, they must have a tragic backstory justifying their actions.

James Ironwood: Has a pathetic excuse for his actions, blames it on other people, never takes accountability, and does a teeny tiny good thing (Think of it as nepotism) and throws outbursts when he doesn’t get his way.

Fandom on all 3 men: OMG, he is so sad, my poor baby, he deserves so much better, my heart is breaking for him. He is a complex character  with so many layers and he owns their horrible disgusting actions. But his actions are not his own fault. He has trauma. OMG so hot.

I mean they also scream character assassination when it comes to male antagonists, but let me ask you this.

You notice how these critics look at a robotic acting nanny for Penny Polendina by the name of Ciel Soleil, who only had 60 seconds of screentime, and whine about wasted potential?

Several things to keep in mind. 1, these people only call v1-3 "peak animation" because they put Monty on a pedestal, and because they were obsessed with yang's chest size. That's it.

2. These people are not used to women characters having more complexity than a male character. They were fed a diet of media that treated female characters badly in one way or another.

3. Last but not least. ANYTHING Miles and Kerry do, or ANYTHING a RWBY fan does, people will hold under a microscope. Yet insulting the show and the fandom gets people put on a pedestal.

The next time you see somebody get mad at female characters in RWBY getting some form of redemption? Check their comment or post history and see if maybe they have some weird issue towards women...or LGBT.

You ever noticed how these critics who claim to be fine with LGBT shipping or at least wlw shipping get so upset and uncomfortable at the mere thought of mlm shipping?

[genderkoolaid]

I don't even know where to begin with talking about my experiences so I guess I'll start where I started when I realized how much baeddel type rhetoric I'd internalized from years prior.

Firstly before I do, people have GOT to understand that saying the word baeddel and talking about the cults existence isn't inherently transmisogynistic. It CAN be if that's all someone talks about, or if they imply all trans fems are baeddels or something, yeah that would be disgusting. But people treat me like that's what I'm saying when all I'm trying to do is talk about an Actually Abusive Friendship I had that lasted several years. Years during which I was trained to be a pushover. They are a hate group and a cult, many of their own ex members and ex allies admit this. Hate groups aren't any less hateful and harmful if they're full of marginalized people. Saying "these trans fems in this group of specific people are abusive, bigoted, and downright violent" isn't saying so about all of that demographic.

If we say "trans meds are often disproportionately trans mascs, and they are a hate group" people agree, but when we do the same for other abusive groups of trans people that have mostly Other genders it doesn't seem to matter.

I had spent a lot of time around a baeddel type I once admired and considered a friend in an old server. She'd manipulate and hurt people constantly, spread separatism, harass others, suibait, but anyone who said anything about it "must be a transmisogynist" so I shut up and dealt with her for far longer than I should have out of fear she'd destroy my social circle, which she inevitably did upon poking at trans masc members in the discord server for seemingly nothing on a regular basis. She wanted infighting. She had Almost every lesbian in my server close ranks around her, harass me, harass my friends, and they left when she did. She killed the server by dragging multiple people out with her using her recruitment and radicalization tactics, some of the people were still teenagers following this grown woman into hate speech and abusive behavior, because she was the oldest member of the entire server and people respected her. (Again, I get called lesbophobic or transmisogynistic for talking about any of this when it's literally just a thing that happened to me and people I know.)

It's so frustrating that one can advocate for lesbians, or for trans women and fems, or for women and fems in general-- above oneself for years and then when you finally start to ask for help, everyone tells you to shut up and keep serving others bc they won't let go of "all men/mascs have it easier no matter what" bullshit.

The worst part is I WANT to help other trans people, of course I do, but why should I continue to focus on others while excluding MYSELF? Nobody's helped me with my trans journey so why have I been splitting my time and hurting myself when I don't have my OWN shit together? Nobody's helping me recover from sexual abuse or assaults I've survived. Nobodys ever offered to help me get anywhere for transition care, nothing. I'm tired. I'm tired of being convinced my purpose is to be a talking head for other people while I suffer and my "allies" tell me to get over myself.

I just wish one could hold trans fems accountable for abuse without people Immediately claiming you're just "trying to make them all look bad".

I wish our own people would stop making every bit of this about us "attacking trans fems" even if they're only mentioned very carefully. No matter how many disclaimers we put they'll always twist it in bad faith. Baeddel self victimization was one of their strongest tactics it seems, guess that's to be expected of radfems.

I want to live in a community where all wrongs can be held accountable regardless of one's identity. I had hoped we all wanted that. Guess I was wrong.

I spent years distancing myself from my trans man identity, both bc my mother could "handle" non-binary more than she'd listen to me being a man, and because of my time stuck with baeddels and TIRFs on discord, Facebook, here on Tumblr, etc.

The way this discourse has unfolded online for so long made me start to think I couldn't be a man, that it would make me "less than my peers", that it would "make me angrier and more aggressive", that being a man would get me rejected from the spaces I rely on and cause everyone to be disgusted with me for my "privilege". That I'd "become ugly", all of that Bullshit the anti trans masc rhetoric sells.

I pushed it away and stopped calling myself a man, started calling myself increasingly vague gender terms, and then realized with a devastating emotional hit several months ago that I had been lied to, and pushed to lie to myself.

Some ppl clearly just want to shove us back into the closet bc they hate men SO BAD.

I am non-binary, but these "peers" are why I ignored the "man" part of my "genderqueer man" identity for years.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

[dwarf-vader-of-middle-earth]

I have literally been saying this for YEARS!!!

The number of people I had as friends who I lost because they couldn't take my absolute love of manhood and masculinity, and thought this was me betraying womanhood, is insane.

I've met multiple women who were staunch feminists, but really they leaned into TERF territory, especially when they'd make posts saying, "All men (include horribly insulting derogatory bullshit about xyz)." And if I tried to correct these folks, they'd tell me, "Oh I mean MOST men but not you specifically because you're *different!"

*This difference, they'd later explain without fail every time, was that I was born a woman and therefore I am a woman in part via some spiritual/societal nature vs nurture bullshit.

As a kid, I didn't know I was trans yet. But I dressed masculinity and acted masculine, taking on typically masculine interests like MMA and Pokémon (back in the early 2000s it was marketed toward the male audience and therefore generally interpreted as a masculine interest). And for the mere fact I was a masculine girl, the other girls would detest and exclude me from everything in school, and the boys saw me as a girl and excluded me from them as well for this fact.

I had nowhere and nobody. My masculinity had me barred as a child from the only community I could interact with for years upon years on end.

When I graduated I'd come out as male. And you bet your ass I immediately tried to venture out into the LGBT+ community both online and in person to find folks to connect with, in hopes they wouldn't exclude me the same way I'd been excluded in school.

The in person ones were FAR better by a long shot. They had tons of LGBT+ people of all gender and sexual identities, we openly discussed our experiences and issues with a mutually positive response, and we all stuck together for the fact that our differences brought us together to learn from one another.

But the more I explored online communities, the more I saw this absolute hatred among so-called feminists who detested masculinity and men as a whole, including trans men. Many of them would outright try to tell me I was a lesbian in denial, a good number said they felt they were trans men but could NEVER imagine themselves as a man because men automatically means bad, you name it I saw it all.

To TERFs, what they fail to see is that they hate patriarchy. They don't hate masculinity they hate patriarchy.

TERFs often see trans men, and, in their eyes, believe we're still women who just need to find our "Inner Woman" again.

I saw this come around during a major push for the concept of the "divine feminine", or essentially an ideology claiming that womanhood and femininity are the only pure and therein valid existence. If anyone is not female, they are ultimately a wrong and dangerous "other" which threatens femininity and women as a whole. To those who believe the divine feminine, they see woman as entirely equivalent with feminine, and this often falls into white, eurocentric racist stereotypes of what feminine is, and what it entails. The divine feminine denies all masculinity and manhood, claiming these threaten the safety of women. They fail to understand the spectrum of masculine and feminine, and deny that each presents differently in various countries, societies, and cultural groups.

This concept of the divine feminine is entirely TERF ideology, developed as a result of TERFs claiming trans women don't belong in women's restrooms because they're men in disguise looking to prey on women. This is obviously false. Completely false. It was even stated by TERFs that they use the bathroom argument as an anti-trans fearmongering propaganda. Trans women are women. They belong in women's spaces, and are by no means or under any circumstances a threat to other women.

But the divine feminine defines true womanhood with one uniting ideology that ultimately, a woman is only one who is born as a female. She enters the world with solely female biology. That's it. Nobody else is a woman. And anyone who is not a woman poses a threat to women. These TERFs who believe in divine femininity are often the first to jump on the genitalia train, and argue about what hormone levels make one a "True Woman".

There's so much more to this, but I'm tired, and I can't contain this all in one post.

Basically. To TERFs? We trans men are a threat to women by believing we're men, that this belief is us giving in to the Man Norm(TM) because of xyz reason, and we need to come back to feminity and womanhood because how DARE we support The Men Who Are The Enemy, according to divine feminine ideology.

And that is, where I have seen, so many so-called feminist women begin to despise men and masculinity as a whole.

What they hate is patriarchal society and norms. Patriarchy is the male-dominated led and ruled society of the majority of the world, which deems a legitimate threat to anyone of non-cismale status because it allows for cis men to hold power over anyone else. The threat is not men, it's the concept that men rule and control everything, hold the power, and dictate the entire world.

And somehow to TERFs, by being a trans man, I am betraying womanhood yet somehow participating in patriarchy because I am a man, but I will never be a man I will always be a woman for the mere fact I was born as such.

And patriarchy does not see me as a man, and therefore bars me from participating (which is good, dismantle the fucking patriarchy).

It's schrodinger's gender. Trans men are schrodinger's gender.

Masculinity and men are not evil. Trans men are not betrayers of womanhood. Not all women are feminine.

And to TERFs reading this, I hope you know I'll continue throwing axes, growing my beard until it's long enough to be braided, I will be a fucking gay ass fag dirty making out with other men, and I will stand by women the entire way supporting their rights, safety, protections, and wellbeing. I love being friends with women. Because to be a good person you have to understand that men and women cannot see one another as threats or enemies, but rather we must comprehend the difficulties of one another's lives, and actively work to dissolve the true enemy of patriarchy, not men or masculinity, or women and femininity. Worth is not defined by gender, or physical presentation, it's defined by who you are as a person.

And if you're going to be a TERF who denies trans men and women their identities, who denies masculinity in all forms, and claims men and masculinity are a threat, then know you're the issue, not the existence of folks who are trans and or masculine.

ultimately a lot of feminists will look down on or outright condemn transmasculinity and transmanhood simply because it is not narratively satisfying. because transmasculine identity and joy does not mesh with their feminism-as-defined-by-cis-women. they see trans men&mascs and, immediately or deep down, feel disappointed. by the womanhood dropouts. feel that transmasculine people will always be less feminist, or that they relinquished their place when they "quit" or "betrayed" their "sisters." they may not even hate trans men, they may not even be cisgender, it's just that they think it would be such a better look for the movement if you didn't... you know.

anyways. without acknowledging this feminist discomfort with transmasculinity and transmanhood, how it's caused by the friction between trans m&ms and cissexist feminism, we'll keep being failed over and over and over again by our own communities. we need to change the narratives we prize instead of treating trans men's identity as a problem to be solved.

[eulangelo]

callout for @genderfluidlucifer

google docs

tw for transmisogyny + TERFs + emotional manipulation

Transmisogyny

Lucifer is a huge transmisogynist who will complain 24/7 about how TERFs hurt the ace community, but the moment @randomclustermissile , a trans girl (who is not an exclusionist at all) tries to point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles (in the most vague and general way possible, without pointing fingers nor calling anyone names) Lucifer will immediatly jump to block her and so they did with me (another inclusionist) and i have to suppose to everyone else who agreed with that post, even arriving to vagueing about us in private group chats to suggest that we were “sympathizing with exclusionists”. all because we dared point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles. lucifer is TME but apparently they think they’re the authority on TERFs and their talking points but actual trans women are not, according to them, since this is the stuff that they would go and spew to other people. (screenshots from @enbyoctoling​)

here’s more examples of Lucifer (again, a transmasc person) going deep in detail about how according to them, TERFs/SWERFs hate aro/ace people and are an active threat to us

1. link

[Image ID: Three screenshots of a post by Genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot is of a paragraph that reads, "Hey. So I can actually answer this. Anon your commentary about how you thought terfs would approve of sex repulsed aces is sort of it. Except...not. Basically terfs hate ace people for not wanting sex in the approved by terfs way. Terfs are actually extremely interested in [forcing] amatonormativity onto everyone. Because for as sex negative as terfs are...they don't want to actually acknowledge or change the fact that amatonormativity is at the root cause of rape culture and misogyny."

The second screenshot is a zoomed in section of the post that reads, "So yeah no I have NO idea where exclus allies are getting this idea from that terfs would even remotely care about the sexual rights of ace people. Terfs generally hate any sexualities in the LGBTQ+ acronym that aren't LGB because they can't force a gender binary onto those sexualities. At least, not as easily. That's why it's actually a massive sign of someone who doesn't call themselves a terf being a crypto terf if they use the term LGB in a positive manner. Along with the term SGA, as it is deliberately exclusive of nonbinary and not inherently SGA centric queer-aligned sexualities. /END ID]

link to the full post, these are just excerpts but the whole thing is just a very long rant about how TERFs hate ace people and so on (i think it’s worth noticing that although the actual post is kinda long, trans women are never once brought op in a conversation about TERFs issues and the only time transmisogyny is mentioned is not relevant to the conversation)

2. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is nothorses. It reads, "Because apparently I have to say it: Testosterone is not a 'violent' hormone. It doesn't make you 'more aggressive' or a worse person, it doesn't make you 'dangerous,' or 'toxic.' Transmascs do not need to be 'warned of the dangers of T.' We do not need to spend our transitions terrified that we're going to become a danger to those around us - that HRT is going to turn us into a monster.

Everyone experiences mood swings during hormonal shifts (pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, estrogen HRT, etc.) and while you might have grumpy moments or feel anger/frustration that you need to learn to handle differently, that doesn't make you a bad person.

Testosterone can change the way you access/process emotions somewhat, but if you're already thoughtful about how you handle your feelings and treat others, you're going to be fine. It's normal to lash out on occasion, by accident, then apologize and work to do better. It doesn't make you a bad person. Everyone on HRT is prone to this, and everyone experiencing hormonal changes is prone to this.

Getting HRT should be positive and affirming; you should not have to spend your entire transition terrified of becoming a monster."

The post then has a reblog by captainlordauditor that reads, "The big danger of T is that needle ouchy." /END ID]

here’s them reblogging from known transmisogynist user @nothorses (once again, the irony that a post about how testosterone is seen as the "aggressive hormone" does not mention transfem at all which are literally the main victims of this rethoric in the first place)

3. link (1), link (2)

[Image ID: Two screenshots of posts by genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot reads, "Queer exclus: We're not repackaging terf rhetoric! Saying that is transmisogynistic! Also queer exclus: Remove the plus from LGBT!" and has tags that say, "I will pay these people to grow some god damn self awareness. Imagine being this dense. Queer discourse." The post has 15 notes.

The second screenshot reads, "Honestly it is so stupid and frustrating to see ace exclus continue to deny that the ace discourse was started by terfs. Proof was given countless times. And a big name terf like galesofnovember even admitted to starting it. Those of you who demand proof but ignore all of this never wanted proof to begin with." and is tagged with, "ace discourse. The post has 38 notes. /END ID]

heres another two post of theirs conflating TERFs with ace exclusionism

4. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblogged post by furbearingbrick. The original poster is boxlizard, Lucifer's old account. The original post reads, "By the way for people still in denial about it, here's galesofnovember, a terf, admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement. She's taking credit for it. Normally if the victims of this behavior weren't ace/aro or other queer identities y'all be ready to rightfully lynch her. But since it's us, y'all just still wanna stamp your feet and go, 'Nuh uh!' instead of acknowledging facts." The part that says, "admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement" is a link to a galesofnovember post.

There is then a reblogged addition from furbearing brick that reads, "archived versions of the receipts" and has two links to the webarchive. The tags read, "Bringing this back since it's apparently still relevant. Terfism mention. Aphobia mention. Queerphobia mention. Blocklist." and has 1,455 notes. /END ID]

this is their post that ive already talked about but basically they found a 52 notes post made by a TERF in 2012 and this one person said "i dont know why i dont get to be the princess of the anti-ace-brigade" and apparently they are convinced that this means TERFs started the ace exclusionism movement and that this is one of their goals. which is insane when TERFs in real life only care about making life miserable for transfem people first and foremost.

5.link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is yu-gay-fudo. It reads, “Just in case you happen to be unaware, some of the “radfem lite” they post to warm you up to their rhetoric, just off the top of my head:

- Ace/aro exclusionism

- Bi exclusionism or claims that bi people are “less queer” bc of “straight passive privilege”

- Saying you have to be dysphoric to identify as transInvalidating nonbinary people

- Calling queer a slur regardless of context, saying people can’t identify as queer, and saying that it can’t be reclaimed

- “Mogai hell”, “kweer”, or otherwise mocking less common labels and claiming they are “just cishets who want to feel special”

- Excluding sex workers from feminist discussions or claiming that sex work is inherently evil

- Basically anyone who thinks they can determine what other people identify as”. The tags read, "queerphobia tw. twerfs tw. no id." and has 70,727 notes. It was reblogged on March 22nd, 2021 /END ID]

another example of conflating radfems to things that, while wrong, have little to nothing to do with them because being a radfem, again, is something very specific that has all to do with transfem oppression.

Emotional manipulation

Lucifer has done nothing but block, break boundaries, spread lies and vague about people, some of which were even mutuals with them knowing they would see the posts. when confronted about it Lucifer's only answer was "just say you hate me and block me" but they actually ended up blocking everyone first, making it impossible for anyone to set some boundaries with them or even just to calmly confront them about anything.

[proof: Io(popncourse) and Lucifer had a disagreement in a shared discord server, which prompted Lucifer to vague Io in a vent post. Io confronted them, as being vagued is one of buns triggers, to which Lucifer initially agreed to delete the vent post, but then proceeded to victimize themself and immediatly blocked Io. later on, Jude(malewifedeckard) was confronted by Lucifer, then after Jude told them “I’m worried that you’ll vague me just like you did with Io” they proceeded to block Jude and vagued about him too. when Io made a post (which was not a callout, it was just bun setting buns boundaries) explaining what Lucifer did, Lucifer immediatly jumped to victimize themself, acting like they were being called out and straight-up lying, even going so far as to say that no one tried to hear them out, which is a blatant lie if you consider the aforementioned Io and Jude’s attempts at doing so, with Lucifer immediatly blocking and cutting ties with the both of them. ] 

(screenshots taken by @popncourse and @malewifedeckard)

as seen in the proof above Lucifer’s behaviour is not ok because they don’t accept any kind of confrontation and immediatly jump to blocking, and after blocking, they'd immediatly go and vague about the people who confronted them pacificly, spreading more lies and painting themself as the victim and even arriving to say “no one hears me out at all” which is simply not something you can say when you block people who are trying to hear you out in the first place.

this is by no means an invitation to go and harass them, send them hate or anything like that. i absolutely don’t want anything even remotely hateful or negative to be sent their way after this post. 

this post was only made because:

1. as an ace person who fully supports the inclusion of aspec identities in the lgbt+ community i don’t want to support an enviroment that costantly downplays transmisogynistic oppression in order to be taken seriously. there are hundreds of ways to make aspec activism without acting like we(as in TME aspecs)are the victims of a system that seeks for the annihilation of transfemenine people in real life everyday. i especially don’t want to support TME individuals who act transfem-friendly but then block any transfem who tries to speak on transmisogyny without a second thought.

2. Lucifer’s behaviour has hurt two friends of mine and i don’t want to associate with someone who actively breaks people’s boundaries without taking accountability when messing up.

3. i cannot associate with someone who spreads lies about me accusing me of sympathizing with exclusionists all while having me blocked so that i can’t see it nor defend me. they complain about people not hearing them out but they’re the very first person who does not try to hear people out, and instead jumps to spread baseless rumors. this is not someone i can nor want to associate with. 

(image descriptions provided by @malewifedeckard)

[aliceundrground]

Took me a couple reads to parse so to put in other words;

If, for example, you say that "different regions evolved to have different brain structures, that's why Asians are so smart" -> the thing you said is technically a compliment but all you're doing is reinforcing eugenic ideas (and racist stereotypes). Not only does this hurt minorities who are set as contradictions to this compliment ("Black people are just naturally lower IQ" which hey look! Literal nazi shit! Woah! /sarcastic), it also hurts the group being 'complimented' as well ("Model Minority" myths, etc) AND attempts to sow division between those groups.

Whenever you see talk like "[group] is just naturally better at [thing]!", think about what the implications are there; who's on the other side of this? What is this saying about them? How can this be twisted? What does believing in this achieve?

This isn't just for racial minorities either, I've often seen this kind of thing crop up with the "trans women have female brains (and trans men have male brains)" talking point. As far as Im aware, 99% of functional mri studies are basically just astrology for academics (fun fact- nazis fucking loved astrology), so there isn't actually a solid basis for that claim. Even if there was- basing our validity as trans folks on it does much more harm than good (pathologizing transness and queerness, requiring medical intervention/authorities to prove we're "valid" or "trans enough" to access rights, excluding anyone who doesn't fit neatly into a gender or sex binary). We can easily see where "women are just naturally more empathetic and men are better at problem solving" makes a beeline straight to rad fems and terfs (as well as the broader patriarchal/misogynistic societal ideas of gender/sex) and that is just as couched in the "brain differences" mindset.

Buying into bioessentialism is never the way forward, even when you or people you like are the ones being complimented (or the people you don't like are the ones being put down).

Ex, "Men are inherently more violent" -> something I've seen in progressive and queer spaces even when terfs say this to frame trans women (/fems) as dangerous predators all the time

"But trans women suppress their testosterone, its the testosterone that makes men violent" -> what about trans fems who don't want or can't get hrt? What about trans men (/mascs) on hrt? What about cis black women who (on average) have higher testosterone than cis white women? What about intersex folks? "Well, trans women have female brains, so even with testosterone, they're biologically different, they don't have male brains"-> back on trans men and intersex folks, what about them? What about black men (and boys) who are constantly framed as Extra Dangerous and regularly murdered because of it? What about men who are abused and their cases dismissed or even ridiculed ("men are more aggressive, men are stonger than women, how could a man ever be a victim?").

While OPs point was focused on biological essentialism, the problems exist for non biological/pseudo spiritual essentialism too (see ideas like the "divine feminine"). Mirroring the previous biological example, terfs will say anyone amab has an inherent Evil or Malice (the real belief behind terf "male socialization" arguments) and some trans-inclusive rad fems will still parrot this same belief, just with the caveat that trans fems are actually exempt though because they have a female soul and/or they 'gave up being men' and are thus True and Good for willingly giving up their Power and Repenting (and some will openly express the end of that logic too- that trans mascs are Doubly Evil for 'choosing to become an oppressor' even after seeing the Evils men commit).

Buying into framing that takes a part of someone's identity or body and assigns inherent moral judgments, projected personal beliefs, or personality traits to it (good or bad) is buying into fascist ideals.

reifying bioessentialist claims about brain differences is going to bite marginalised people in the ass even if you're opening with something 'positive' or complimentary to them. all you've done is accept the same eugenic premises and temporarily reverse the valence signs; it's still strengthening, not subverting, the knowledge system that produces the oppression you want to eradicate

[loveistheonlyway]

I hate how much people treat certain minorities like a "club" to be in instead of accepting the broad expanse of human reality. It's treated as if you can't be Disabled and be a racist, that's not possible. You can't be a POC and be homophobic. You can't be any Minority and be a shitty person. People act like those statements cannot coexist.

They are so quick to dismiss the claims of anyone stating otherwise. "They must not be a REAL [insert minority] then". Just Scottsmaning their way through life, pretending every single person who isn't a white/straight/able-bodied male is perfect and incapable of the violence that all humans are inherently capable of.

It's such a spit in the face too. My main abuser was a disabled female, is she not either just because she's a shitty person? No. Because those realities exist outside of the kind of person she is. I've been racially discriminated against by gay men, does their behavior make them any less gay? No, it doesn't. Because being disabled, being gay, etc aren't defined by your behavior. And pretending it is just invites other discrimination. "You don't support [insert ideology] so you must not be a REAL [reality]". When in actuality, no matter what I support and what I don't, how I treat others, etc I will STILL be female, I will be disabled, I will be POC, and I will be bisexual.

It dismisses the very idea of victims. I was abused by a disabled woman, I was racially discriminated by a gay man. Would you dare tell me that I am wrong to feel hurt, just because their behavior makes them any less of those things? No? Then why, god why, do we say woman are wrong when they are harmed by men, trans women included? "You're overreacting". Or, worse, "they must not be a real trans woman, trans women would never". Are we serious? Does being apart of a certain group exclude us from wrong doing?

Don't get me wrong, ill treatment of others is terrible. Every person deserves safety and respect and equal treatment. But excluding the "less than perfect" and basing inclusion on an arbitrary set of rules based on behavior won't make those people go away. Turning a blind eye to the shitty people in our communities won't help anyone, much less the victims they continue to exploit. If anything, it protects them. It allows them to blanket themselves with these arbitrary rules, and to treat them like shields to use when consequences come their way. This is exactly why names are good. And why basing inclusion on how someone Acts, isn't not. I will forever be female, disabled, and WOC, and that will never change. The same goes for my abuser, and others who do wrong.

[the-feminist-philosopher]

They tell me that- as a woman- one day I'll eat my words. One day I'll regret standing by those who they seek to exclude. They even suggest that some day someone will take advantage of my advocacy; that it may bring my death.

While I know that isn't so, I'm still willing to take that chance.

Mostly because I know that defending the purity of white womanhood has always been a "significant axis of common bigotries" and that Fascist propaganda often obsesses over white fertility. I also know that if I am to be assaulted, statistically, it will be by someone closest to me.

I don't fear the world, even though I've long been told that I should.

I also recognize that when your movement is lauded by the likes of Piers Morgen and highlighted by the likes of Tucker Carlson and defended by the likes of Ben Shapiro, there's a better than good chance you're on the wrong side of history.

I know you're funded by Christian rightwing groups from the United States. And I know you've allied with groups from the Heritage Foundation to the American Center for Law and Justice to the Alliance Defending Freedom. I know they design the legislative templates you use for your anti-trans legislation and I know they help campaign your legislation.

I know your monies and the organizations and leaders who head your movement are supporting the very organizations and politicians working to strip people of the right to abortion.

I hope your bigotry tastes sour knowing you traded away our rights to the "devil" for the chance to hate without consequence. I hope it tastes sour knowing that you helped create the very tool with which the rightwing aims to destroy feminism altogether.

I hope it continues to sour on your tongue as you give your money and support and alliances to those who are banning books from our schools and public libraries; to those who are suing libraries for displaying pro LGB books, accusing them of peddling "porn" and "obscenities;" to those who are pushing to end privacy protections in marriage and medicine- that very thing that allows people to love in peace; and to those groups dedicated to connecting "radical feminists" with hate groups who target the LGBT+ community and who think LGBT+ people are a sin and child predators.

I hope it tastes foul knowing that the founders and co-founders of your movement are eco-fascists who believe that the Earth needs a "mass die off" in order to preserve the environment.

But you don't care about the genocidal foundations and tone of your movement, do you? Wasn't it Janice Raymond herself who advocated for “morally mandating [transsexualism] out of existence,” mainly by restricting access to transition care? And wasn't it Sheila Jeffreys who called trans women "parasites"?

Please understand that the likes of Richard Spencer recognize how useful your language and beliefs are to recruiting more women as white supremacists. It doesn't take much to convince someone who believes that our hierarchies are due to biology to believe in overt white supremacy. It doesn't take much to convince someone who believes in gender essentialism to fully embrace bio essentialism.

You may have "liberation" and "radical" and "feminist" in your self-proclaimed title, but I know your movement has ultraconservative ties. You cannot ally with these groups and still call yourself an advocate for women's rights or claim to support lesbians. You cannot ally yourself with anti-abortion, violent misogynist, or hate groups and still claim you're a "feminist."

You have co-opted leftist language and now capitalize on women's social frustrations and genuine grievances with the patriarchy and the existing social order to create a feeling of political loss. And you tell them this loss is the result of a lower social group.

But, no, go ahead and make yourself palatable to the very system that exploits us and mistreats us (/sar). Go ahead and repeat the same talking points as the alt right.

Like the idea the is an immutable physical sexual dimorphism

or the idea that pornography is corrupting

or the idea that activist criticism destroys people's social capitol

or the idea that one's gender is tied to one's sex

or the idea that certain groups are intrinsically violent and aggressive, so we should have "separatism:" the practice of separating a certain group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender

or the idea that science and "fact" can never be bigoted, as if that's not exactly what people said about eugenics and as if there aren't countless examples of "biological fact" being used to justify atrocious things

or the idea that policies around sex or gender are an act of paternalism; a way to "protect" women

or the idea that there are innate qualities to the different sexes

or the idea there are certain universal and intrinsic biological or psychological features at the root of the difference between the sexes

or the idea that sex is a necessary condition for gender

or the idea that biological sex determines who a person is

or the fixation on classifying people into separate groups

or the idea that some "women" are simply foolish and brainwashed; that they can't really think for themselves to make a big decision about anything from medical procedures like transitioning to careers like sex work

or the idea that women are defined by and subject to their biology and biological functions, thus reducing women only to the break-down of their definition: a bipedal anthropoid of the sex that can bear offspring and produce eggs, and stripping them of the the quality or condition of being an individual person

You don't even realize how your sense of comfort in the public sphere is tied to your views on ‘proper’ 'female' presentation. You cannot discriminate on the basis of transgender status without imposing a stereotypical notions of how sexual organs and gender identity ought to align. You are making assumptions about someone's reproductive anatomy and making decisions about someone's status or inclusion based on how you think people with that reproductive anatomy ought to behave or do behave.

"Transphobic policies may be instituted on the grounds of 'protecting women,' but in practice, all they do is institute a hellish panopticon where everyone is constantly inspected for signs of gender nonconformity, and where the only way to stay safe... is to present as the absolute most stereotypical version of your assigned sex at all times."

-Jude Ellison S. Doyle

When we try to set firm limits on who’s allowed to identify as a woman, or what women are allowed to look like, cisgender women invariably suffer too. Limiting the definition of "woman" is only going to lead to more violence against women as this practice will always exclude people who are women, but who don't neatly fit into your definition of woman.

"Any attempt to catalog the commonalities among women … has the inescapable result that there is some correct way to be a woman. This will inevitably encourage and legitimize certain experiences of gender and discourage and delegitimize others, subtly reinforcing and entrenching precisely those forces of socialization of which feminists claim to be critical."

-Carol Hay 

In reality, your pro-police, anti-sex worker, anti-porn, anti-trans politics only robs people of their autonomy and personhood under the guise of keeping them safe.

Can you even structure a feminist argument or discuss a feminist issue without an attack on trans, nonbinary, gender non conforming, and intersex people?

Your misogyny is old. It's tired. It's unoriginal. And it's time to put it down.

[nothorses]

heyy! first of all i hope you're doing well. thank you for taking the time out to read and respond to this (if you choose to). this has been bothering me for a while and i'd like your opinion on it.

i read these two articles recently - the first one is about a lesbian professor of gender studies + sexuality arguing why women should be allowed to "hate men"; the second is an interview with her about the article in which she addresses some of the negative responses she got to that article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html

https://outline.com/ttKscw

i have a lot of questions about this.

firstly, i cannot tell whether this is the sort of reductionist, radfemmy, "fuck all men" feminist you've been talking about. i understand her sentiments but i disagree with her statement, and i want to get better at identifying shallow feminism. i don't think my personal opinion is credible enough (yet) to draw any conclusions right off the bat. are there any 'tells' or signs that indicate what sort of feminism someone is speaking about (in the same way that there are certain idenitifiers of TERF ideology even when it is not explicitly mentioned)? for example, in the interview, she explicitly says "Where is discrimination? Where are men being excluded? Where are men being abused? Oh, come on." as well as her implied praise of kamala harris as 'the feminist we need in office'. are those things indicators of whether her position on feminism is credible/an appropriate portrayal of how Feminism™ should function? in short, do i take this woman entirely seriously about all this?

secondly, how do you feel about gender being a social construct, as she states? does that not contradict the very real physical dysphoria that a lot of us experience? doesn't it invalidate almost all the experiences of struggle against transphobia and cissexism, as well as our identities, by painting gender identity as 'not a big deal' or 'fake' by virtue of being a social construct? also, is gender identity not influenced by biology to some extent?

thirdly, along a similar vein, how do you feel about gender abolitionism? i don't exactly have a v specific question about this one, i just want another trans person's opinion on how that sort of society would affect them. i do not wish to be stripped of my identity, and i am opposed to gender abolitionism because of that. is this sentiment a product of some misunderstanding i have?

if you have any other thoughts at all about the articles, i'd love to hear those. thank you!

Oooh, anon, these are such good questions.

Why Can’t We Hate Men? by Suzanna Walters

Follow-Up Interview with Walters

Walters does a weird sort of dance in both articles: her argument is that “hating men” is okay and even good, but she has to completely misrepresent what “hating men” is, does, and means in order to make her point align with what she actually believes is defensible.

“Hating men” is not actually about hating men, she says; she doesn’t hate men at all, in fact. She knows they’re not the problem, but rather the systems of patriarchy in place. She knows racism and other intersections make “hating men” complicated at best, and harmful at worst. She just wants men to “lean back” and understand the power they hold; to be feminists. She thinks it’s a good thing to welcome men into feminism.

So then what the hell does “hating men” actually mean, to her? Why make that the hill to die on, if nothing in her argument has anything to do with that hill?

I don’t think she really believes any of the arguments she’s making in the first place. Walters pays lipservice to racism and intersectionality in a brief comment, then never brings it up again. Her view of feminist issues is narrow and shallow, dealing mostly with “the safety of women” and the representation of women in positions of power; both of which fail to address the structural issues of the patriarchy and how it functions, and prioritize Making Women Powerful over dismantling the systems of oppression giving people power over each other in the first place. She believes that all men are universally and inherently benefiting from the patriarchy, and that men in fact are the system to be fought.

Some of this pings as TERFy, too. Walters never really argues against radical feminism. Her argument against gender-essentialism is, as you said, that gender shouldn’t exist at all- but she claims the patriarchy discriminates based on genitalia.

You caught that as well; “where are men being oppressed/abused?” she says, after her performative gesture toward intersectionality. Walters also compares the oppression of women to racism at the same time, which... holy shit.

I’d personally peg her as a mainstream liberal feminist. She’s a successful white professor who sincerely believes that her experiences as a woman are universal. Her takes are surface-level and shallow at best, and edging dangerously close to radical feminism and quiet TERFism at worst.

TL;DR: The Author

She’s a mainstream liberal feminist who makes a string of confused, contradicting arguments because she chose to die on a hill she doesn’t really understand. Her arguments stray TERFy and racist on multiple occasions.

RE: Gender questions

What gender is and where it comes from is a complicated question, and I don’t think there’s a simple answer to it. The major arguments are that it’s social, biological, or psychological; either it comes from how you’re socialized, what your genitals look like, or it’s something built into your brain chemistry (think “wrong body” trans theory).

I personally think it’s a bit of a mix, leaning toward the social and psychological, and that where gender “comes from” is a little different for each individual. Biology has a bit to do with it; we’ve had somewhat consistent ideas "man” and “woman” across various cultures.

But what gender means in each society is different, and how people conceptualize it has been different. What gender someone feels they are may be influences by their culture’s gender expectations. Some indigenous cultures even have anywhere from two to five distinct “genders”, and I can say personally that my conceptualization of my own gender relies pretty heavily on how other people perceive and treat me.

Not to mention that trans people have existed for as long as people in general have, even in societies that lack any formal gender concept for trans folks. So psychology must play a role, too.

So if we strip away all social expectations of gender, we’re still left with psychological and biological influences on gender. Which is part of why I don’t think we can abolish gender to begin with; people will always have internal understandings of gender to some extent, and they’ll always express them, and therefore there will always be a social element to gender. We can, however, work toward abolishing restrictive, binaristic, oppressive gender structures that limit and punish expressions of gender.

And as a sidenote, the whole “gender is just a social construct, but genitals are real” and “we should abolish all concept of gender” thing is extremely TERFy. There are thoughtful and trans-inclusive ways of approaching the question, but usually we’re talking about gender as part of a system of power and oppression. Walters is using the TERF framework that their “gender critical” comes from: gender isn’t real, therefore trans people aren’t real. Patriarchy is just based on biological realities and sex, and we should abolish the idea of gender (as code for abolishing trans rights and theory).

TL;DR: Gender

I personally believe that gender is a synthesis of biological, psychological, and social influences that is highly unique to every individual. There’s no real way to “abolish” it, only systems of power and oppression that rely on and enforce it. Walters’ way of discussing it is extremely TERFy, and her arguments should be heavily scrutinized.