#white gays who act like their identity will make them oppressed
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
"I support trans people!" quick, are you normal about the concept of transandrophobia? Do you think it's just 'white men trying to be oppressed'? Do you brush it off as merely misdirected transmisogyny? Do you scoff at the struggles of trans men and go 'but trans women have it worse! talk to a trans woman and see how bad THEY have it!'?
Do you use a trans man's chest size as an excuse for constant misgendering? Do you hold transmasculine people to a standard of needing to be feminine so to not scare the women, but proceed to not take their gender seriously if they do perform femininity? Do you use your horribly veiled misandry as an excuse to make trans men feel unsafe in queer spaces?
Are you normal about AFAB transfems and AMAB transmascs? Intersex trans people? GNC trans people? Trans people who use xenogenders? Trans people who use it/its or other neopronouns? She/her transmascs and he/him transfems? Can you acknowledge that, sometimes, people are simultaneously transmasc and transfem? Do you accept transmasc women, transfem men, etc?
Do you invalidate the identities of trans women who have beards, or present 'masculinely'? Do you see them as predatory posers? Do you go out of your way to misgender trans women who happen to actually be predators, because 'clearly they were just men'? Do you shame trans women for exploring their sexuality?
Are autistic trans people not able to make decisions on their own transition, as far as you're concerned? Are our ways of expressing and seeing gender 'stupid' to you? Is the concept of autigender too 'insane' to you? Do you see our gender identities as simply jokes?
Can you survive being around a trans man lesbian or a veldian (link) trans woman? Can you support a multigender person who is both gay AND lesbian? Can you include transmasculine nonbinary people in your 'support' of nonbinary lesbians?
I've used the term 'conditional support' a few times, but it is very much conditional support if you explode over one trans person's identity, and then turn around and act all supportive of another's. If all it takes for you not to support a trans person is how they label their gender or sexuality, how they present, what their body looks like, etc, you are not supportive of trans people! Your 'support' is very limited and strict. You have one rigid idea of what trans people are 'supposed' to be, and anyone who deviates isn't valid or worthy, and that is NOT the kind of behavior an ally should exhibit. It is not the way you treat other trans people, and it is far from supportive.
#long post#transgender#trans#trans rights#autistic trans person#autigender#nonbinary#genderqueer#turigirl#lesboy#transmasc#transfem#transmascfem#transmasc lesbian#transfem gay#xenogender#trans man lesbian#trans woman gay#gnc trans#gnc#neopronouns#nounself pronouns#it/its#lgbtq#lgbt#boydyke#girlfag#transexual#transsexual#trans man
165 notes
·
View notes
Text
Everytime I see one of those âoh donât say you hate all men because that includes x minority men so youâre being a bigot!â genres of posts I feel like slamming my face or someone elseâs face into the nearest wall. Like do you not realize the difference between being bigoted against a certain minority group and women having a justified rational logical hatred towards the gender/group that as a whole oppresses and mistreats us and sees us as less than??? Like itâs like if someone said that poc arenât allowed to say that they hate white people because white gay people exist and therefore youâre being homophobic against white gay people. Like shut the fuck up, dumbass. This is clearly just a tactic to silence women for speaking out against misogyny in a way that doesnât coddle or center menâs feelings likeâŠif you canât tell the difference between a woman saying that she hates men as a whole and bigotry towards a specific group of marginalized men then youâre a fucking disgraceful idiot and a misogynist lemme be the first one to tell you, donât even pretend to be a feminist or anti-terf if you think a woman saying she hates men is saying that all men are bad or that she hates minority men in particular. Like
These two posts are the exact fucking same despite being written by two separate people. Itâs like you canât even conceive of the existence of marginalized WOMEN because your view of oppression starts and ends with men and âmisandry is real you guys i swear đ„șâ like do you think all the women who hate men are white cishet able-bodied perisex thin women and no one else lol do Black women brown women trans women lesbian/bisexual women fat women intersex women disabled women etc. even cross your damn mind? Are you completely fucking ignorant to the fact that all men have male privilege and are capable of using it against women and being misogynistic even if they donât all have equal access to it/donât hold systemic power against all groups of women or do you think that somehow only the most privileged echelons of white men can ever do anything wrong or sexist ever? âWhen you say all men you mean ALL menâ yes I do, so? Whatâs your point? You gonna stop talking now or what? Like it or not there is no marginalized identity that shields a man from male privilege/misogyny or him being able to be called out for it lol there just isnât and if you try to pretend that it is or that some men are above criticism(like how some people used to say that gay men canât be misogynistic because theyâre not sexually attracted to women) then youâre ignoring the women in those communities who are also oppressed not just by society at large but by the men in those communities who hold systemic institutional and social power over them. ALL men have hating women in common! Read that sentence again!!! Hating men as an oppressive class(which, letâs face it, is what they are) because the majority of them DO hurt or act sexist towards women in some way shape or form is not the same as hating men for their marginalized status because I can guarantee you that women with those marginalized statuses have it WAY way worse and hate men as well and are the vast majority of the people making these complaints about men to begin with, lol, so shut your damn mouths if you donât have anything important or valuable to say.
They just hate to hear women talking about hating men because it upsets their fragile feelings so they look for any excuse to tell us that weâre the bad guys actually and dress it up under progressive thought when really theyâre just the patriarchyâs asskissers, because before long theyâre gonna start saying that youâre not allowed to hate white cishet men who are the most privileged in society. Itâs just ânot all menâ in diverse dressing:
Like it never even occurs to these idiots that the women making these statements are also trans or poc or whatever other group and may very well have experienced misogyny and oppression from these groups and now theyâre calling us âbioessentialistâ and terfs for it as if we say we hate men because we think that theyâre innately evil when really we KNOW they arenât biologically hardwired to be that way! But the vast majority of them ARE that way because they choose to be, because of the social benefits they get from treating women as lesser, them being oppressed too doesnât change that lol. These people donât actually care about trans men or Black men or disabled men or queer men or whatever men they just want to pretend men as a whole are a victimized oppressed class just because some girl wrote âI hate men I wish theyâd all kill themselvesâ in a Tumblr post once and they somehow think thatâs the same as getting your rights violently stripped away but they want to look âprogressiveâ about their Mra ideology so here you go. If you say you hate men then youâre a terf and gender essentialist! âNuff said! I am very smart! đ€
And one more thing, likeâŠnobody who makes âI think all men should dieâ posts is like 100% serious about it lol. Like we all know that men arenât going to all drop down dead because posts like these are being made lol. If they did then it wouldâve happened a long time ago, and not just on Tumblr but on other social media sites too. These posts ultimately do nothing and have no power to hurt any man anywhere whatsoever. Youâre all just angsting over literally fucking nothing. NOTHING, my darlings! Women are ALLOWED to vent about their anger they feel at the patriarchy because of what MEN(and it IS men) put them through without someone trying to make them feel guilty with some sort of gotcha to prove to them that they were secretly a hateful bigot all this time. Like Iâm sorry if these posts offend youâŠgrow up, maybe? Breathe some fresh air? Touch some grass? Interact with friends and family off the ânet? Youâll realize pretty quickly how little some angry tumblr posts about how all men should be swept up in a storm cloud actually matter and effect people in the real world. Maybe instead of defending men and policing the way women complain about their oppression because itâs not nice enough for you you could instead work on combatting misogyny(you know, an actual real world problem??? đđđ) and making the women around you feel safe and treat them as equals so that they donât feel annoyed at men enough to the point of complaining about how horrible men are to them. These posts arenât made just for funsies theyâre an actual legit response to the hostility men unleash upon women in every section of our lives every single goddamn day and Iâve had enough with a lot of you bitches trying to find any excuse to silence women when we talk about these things. Just scroll away or block us if it bothers you so much. It is so so free to do and takes very little effort, far less effort than actually getting up from your computer and taking a good long stretch which is what some of you fuckers actually need. Thatâs it Iâm done here. Gonna go drink some water and eat a cookie.
#sexism#misogyny#i hate men#misogynoir#transmisogyny#lesbophobia#biphobia#misandry doesnât exist you fuckers#oh and needless to say please donât harass anybody in these screenshots#just block and move on#blocklist
79 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ghost Story Good Enough Analysis
Ghost Story Musical has two main couples, Joey and Anthony, and JĂłzef and Hao. The song Good Enough is the backstory to Joey and Anthony's relationship, and within this you can see the major cracks in their relationship and why it is failing when the story starts.
Before I begin this analysis, I would like to define a few terms.
Infantilization: "Infantilization is when an adult is being treated like a child, even though nothing about their mental, physical, social, or intellectual wellbeing requires such treatment."
Fetishization: "Fetishization can be thought of as the act of making someone an object of sexual desire based on some aspect of their identity."
White Supremacy Culture: "White Supremacy Culture is a form of racism centered upon the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that whites should politically, economically, and socially dominate non-whites."
Internalize Racism: âInternalized racism is a form of internalized oppression, defined by sociologist Karen D. Pyke as the "internalization of racial oppression by the racially subordinated."â
I will be organizing the lyrics by color, Anthony is green, Joey is blue, when they sing together it is orange, and when I am unsure who it is singing then it will be in pink.
(ANTHONY and JOEY, in a bar that is really just their apartment. Younger and hungrier. ANTHONY perches by the edge of the stage, looking into the dance floor like he is going to fall off in a second. JOEY leans on the bar with affected casualness, but after he shifts a little to sip his drink, he carefully repositions himself exactly back to where he was. Neither of them are dancing.)
ANTHONY:
TRY NOT TO WISH THAT IâD JUST STAYED HOME IN BED
Anthony is not a social person, presumably he was dragged out to a gay bar by friends, and really isnât interested in being there. Heâs trying to have a good time and force himself to be happy so it wonât disturb the people around him, this is a negative personality trait that can be seen within Wolf In Sheep Country. From the beginning he has struggled with setting boundaries and openly speaking about his discomforts. This behavior will only escalate and make his relationship with Joey crumble.
TRY TO IGNORE GUYS TALKING OVER MY HEAD
This line is either about Anthonyâs friends ignoring him and not really taking him into consideration, or other gay men at the bar not really considering his feelings at all and just fetishizing him being asian.
CHOKE DOWN A CHASER, PRETENDING TO TEXT
Once again, Anthony is keeping his own personal issues pushed down instead of openly discussing them, just drinking and pretending not to be dying a little on the inside.
MAKE SURE MY LOCK SCREEN CROPS OUT MY EX
This could add potential context, Anthony most likely is fresh out of a relationship, and is trying to find a guy to fuck and then forget or his friends made him go out to try and help him forget about the break up. Either way, itâs another instance of Anthony being avoidant rather than dealing with what is going on within his life. The fact he crops his Lock Screen instead of changing it is also a show of it, sweep it under the rug instead of making any actual change.
JOEY:
TRY NOT TO FREEZE AGAINST A FOREST OF EYES
Joey is a transgender man, and like many trans people he experiences social dysphoria. He is deeply aware of how people are perceiving him, and is terrified of people staring at him and seeing his feminine âflawsâ.
PULL DOWN MY JEANS TO TRY AND BREAK UP MY THIGHS
Joey is trying to make himself appear more masculine, covering the fact he most likely has a bit more curve to his body fat distribution and that he lacks masculine genitalia. Itâs that fear of someone seeing through him and seeing that heâs trans.
TRY NOT TO SPEAK SO MY VOICE DOESNâT CRACK
Many trans men who are early on hormones or pre t struggle with their voice cracking, Joey is avoiding speaking so no one hears the fact heâs not the ideal of white masculinity, no matter how much he looks the part.
IGNORE HOW THEY TITTER WHEN I TURN MY BACK
Joey believes that everyone can tell he is trans and are judging him for it, that when he turns his back every man in that room is staring and scrutinizing him.
ANTHONY/JOEY:
BUT THIS WILL BE GOOD
Joey and Anthony are trying to stay positive and hopeful, they want to have something come out of that night, and are both telling themselves that something other than discomfort will be pulled out of the mess.
JOEY:
DESIRE LIGHTS ME UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE
Itâs notable that Joey is the one who gets to say this line, often times trans men are desexualized due to the male gaze and the idea they canât openly desire sexual contact, so him openly divulging the fact he is there for a one night stand is a nice touch.
ANTHONY/JOEY:
THIS WILL BE GOOD
Again, more reassurances to themselves that they arenât going to walk out alone that night. This lyric is a motif that gets brought up throughout the song in various ways.
ANTHONY:
BUT EVERY HEATED GLANCE I CATCH AT MISSES ME
Anthony is trying to find a hook up, but so far no one has shown much interest in him, and itâs getting under his skin. He wants sex, he wants someone to be a rebound after his break up, and is feeling deeply insecure about the fact no one has shown interest so far.
ANTHONY/JOEY:
THIS WILL BE GOOD, AS GOOD AS I CAN DO 'CAUSE BOTTOM-FEEDERS ARE STILL FISH IN THE SEA JUST LOOK, I'LL BE GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU
The previous line of reassurance is flipped on its head in this, going from a positive affirmation that they arenât going to be left behind, to one of self doubt. Both men are deeply flawed, believe themselves barely enough for anyone at all, and are willing to settle for anyone because they believe anyone who dates them are settling for âgood enough.â
ANTHONY:
I SEE THIS ALL-AMERICAN BOY BY THE BAR HIS SHIRT'S STILL ON, DOES HE KNOW WHERE WE ARE?
Anthony finally takes notice of Joey, and sees just how out of place he is. Joey is dressed like heâd call someone a slur in a bass pro shop, meanwhile heâs in a bar full of guys that all look like theyâd make someone burst into flames with how well theyâd be able to roast an outfit.
LEANING LIKE HE'S LOOKING FOR HIS PICKET FENCE HE'S NODDING TO THE MUSIC BUT HIS SHOULDERS ARE TENSE
In this we can see Anthonyâs attraction to Joey is due to his ideal American boy look, Joey may be uncomfortable, but all Anthony can see is the white ideal he has been chasing and wants Joey for himself due to this.
I'M ALWAYS SOMEONE'S PORCELAIN DOLL OR HIS BRITTLE DREAM OF BAMBOO I CAN BE THE BOY YOU NEED IF YOU SNAP ME RIGHT IN TWO
Anthony reflects on how men have often times fetishized him due to his Chinese background, infantilizing him and feminizing him due to it, and wants someone who can just be rough with him and wonât treat him like a fragile China doll.
AND WHO ARE YOU, ALL CORN-SILK HAIR AND MAPLE TREE, DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK I KNOW YOU WANT FROM ME?
In this line we can see Anthony being hypocritical, along with a flash of internalized racism. Heâs fetishizing Joeyâs white and western traits, idealizing him as some sort of perfect model of what he should be, and assuming Joey only wants him so he can be having sex with an Asian guy.
I SWEAR I'M STILL GOOD THE LAST BRUISED PEACH AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BIN IâM STILL GOOD SINCE WHEN IS NOT BEING CHOSEN A SIN? I'M GOOD, AS GOOD AS ANY OF YOU âCAUSE THE RUNT OF THE LITTER TRIES HARDEST TO WIN I SWEAR I'LL BE GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU
Both men are still on the train of thought thinking theyâre just good enough, not really being able to have the level of self confidence and love to take pride in themselves, but still wanting to live in a world where they can be enough for someone.
JOEY:
DON'T SNIFF THE BAIT IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA BITE IT'S GETTING LATE, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT I DONâT WANT TO BE YOUR âONLY EXCEPTIONâ OR TREATED LIKE A BACHELORETTE I CAN REEL YOU IN WITH A PRIMED PERCEPTION BUT I HAVEN'T MASTERED HOOK-AND-SINKER YET
Joey is used to men fetishizing him for his transness, not seeing him as a man due to it, and having to fight tooth and claw to be taken seriously as a man. Heâs worried Anthony is going to do the same, but still wants to sleep with him. Heâs also struggling with the fact he hasnât really gotten to the point here he can feel comfortable openly propositioning someone for sex, so it hoping Anthony will take the first big step.
AND WHO ARE YOU, WITH PRETTY EYES, SOFT INGENUE, DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I THINK YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING TO?
In this line it is Joey who is being the hypocrite, he is feminizing and infantilizing Anthony, and the vocabulary he uses in particular is something to take note of. Anthony is Chinese, and Joey specifically calls out Antonyâs eyes as âprettyâ, and follows it up with âsoft ingenue.â While there is nothing inherently wrong with finding a partnerâs eyes pretty, the context of him calling Anthony an ingenue changes the meaning.
An ingenue is a young girl who is inexperienced, fills the role of the innocent, and in media is often taken advantage of by someone more mature. Joey is feminizing Anthony by doing this, presuming him inexperienced and an easy target, and going entirely based on the fact Anthony is Asian. Joey is a white man who is feminizing a Chinese man for is own sexual gratification and being deeply hypocritical all the while.
Joey also believes that Anthony doesnât realize he is trans, so is just waiting for the moment it comes out and Anthony doesnât want him anymore.
I SWEAR I'M STILL GOOD THE CRUSHED UP CHIPS IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BAG I'M STILL GOOD I COULD HAVE A DATE, BUT I'M JUST GOING STAG I'M GOOD, AS GOOD AS ANY OF YOU THE KID WHO'S IT ALWAYS WANTS TO PLAY TAG I SWEAR IâLL BE GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU
Continuing to play into the insecurities both have, but desire for one enough.
JOEY:
GOD, YOU'RE FLAWLESS
There is a tendency for, white men especially, to sexualize people of POC descent as the ideal standard of sexual beauty. Specifically those of East Asian descent, which ties back to ideas of orientalism and the male gaze. Joey calling Anthony flawless is him falling into the same âporcelain dollâ trap that Anthony pointed out earlier, not seeing Anthony as his own person, instead something to be used for his own pleasure.
ANTHONY:
GOD, YOU'RE STUNNING
Anthony is fetishizing Joeyâs western traits, seeing him as more attractive due to his whiteness, and finds him the most attractive man there due to Joey fitting perfectly into western ideals of manhood.
JOEY/ANTHONY:
YOUR LOVE COULD MAKE ME PERFECT, TOO
These two are codependent as all hell, they want to use each other to make up for their own perceived flaws, and think if they can have one another itâll âfixâ whatâs wrong in their lives. Itâs an unhealthy mindset thatâll come later to bite them in the ass in Thereâs A House, when neither of them want to discuss whatâs wrong in their relationship, and instead choose to hide behind the idea of having a perfect relationship.
ANTHONY:
MY HAIR WOULD BE BLONDER-
Based on this line we can assume that Anthony has dark brown or black hair, a trait that is typical of East Asian men, and that Joey is blonde. Anthony wants to be whiter, he wants to fit into the mold of perfect white man, but canât no matter how hard he tries because thatâs just not how is body is made. He wants what Joey has, wants to be that strong white male archetype.
JOEY:
MY VOICE WOULD BE LOWER-
Joey, in this instance, is envious of Anthonyâs (presumably) status as a cisgender man. He wants to have Anthonyâs lower voice, the ability to pass as a man with no effort, to have what he doesnât. Heâs envious of Anthony.
JOEY/ANTHONY:
IâLL WAKE UP JUST AS HOT AS YOU
Again, both are fetishizing one another and envious, desperately wanting the traits that they admire, unable to see their own positive ones in the haze of self hatred and internalized racism and transphobia.
AND I WONâT HAVE ANY REASON NOT TO DANCE IN THE LIGHT
They think that they can be more confident if they âfixâ the parts of themself they donât like, for Anthony it would be the fact he is a visibly Asian man, and for Joey it would be his transness. They donât really understand that itâs more their own self esteem rather than something inherently wrong with their own bodies that is causing their awful feelings, and are trying to take each other for the night to hide away those feelings.
JOEY:
I KNOW YOU'LL REGRET THIS-
Joey thinks that Anthony will regret sleeping with a transgender man, most likely having had it happen to him in the past, so is just bracing himself for it.
ANTHONY:
YOU'LL REGRET THIS
Anthony most likely has had white men regret having sex with him due to his race, and is just waiting for Joey to turn around and not want him anymore.
JOEY/ANTHONY:
BUT I'LL GET YOU FOR TONIGHT
Joey and Anthony both see each other as conquests, as ways of taking hold of their own insecurities, and see being able to have sex with one another as a victory over the parts of themselves they hate. A sort of âif he fucks me, then Iâm still enough, in spite of all thatâs wrong with me.â
For Joey it is being able to sleep with a cis man and be chosen as a sexual partner, being picked out of all the men in that bar, and it being his own self assurance that heâs enough.
With Anthony it is a white man wanting him, him seeing it as a victory over his own heritage, and a victory over the system of oppression that makes him feel lesser than his white peers. If he can fuck a white man, one that is the beacon of white centric masculine rhetoric, then heâs won something in that moment.
This is in stark contrast to how Hao and JĂłzef speak of sex and their desire for one another, in the demos Hao is the one who speaks openly about it, but when he does it is purely out of adoration and love for JĂłzef. They have such a fulfilling relationship that Hao is able to notice the moment JĂłzef starts acting too rough and not himself, because heâs used to JĂłzef being a very loving partner, both in their everyday life and in their sexual relationship. During Haoâs pondering of love during I Breath In, You Breath Out, he makes direct note that sex is nothing but a chore without love.
Joey and Anthony donât have sex out of love, they do it out of a fucked up sense of obligation and competition.
BUT I SWEAR YOU'RE STILL GOOD SO NO NEED TO LOOK FOR BRUISES THAT I COULDN'T SEE
The earlier line about light comes back here, because they are having sex in what we can assume is a dark room, they cannot actually see one another. Due to this darkness, there is no risk of being able to see each otherâs âflawsâ, and metaphorically they are idealizing one another instead of being able to love the real person in front of them.
YEAH, YOU'RE STILL GOOD BECAUSE I MIGHT DISCOVER YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME YOU'RE GOOD, BUT MAYBE IF YOU ARE THEN YOU CAN TEACH ME TO BE STILL GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU
Both men are absolutely terrified that if they see each other in the light, in a vulnerable state, then theyâll realize they can do better. Theyâre also scared of seeing each other and only seeing what they lack, which they are already doing. They want each other as a broken way to patch up the holes in their hearts and insecurities, not because they actually want to love one another.
The song Good Enough, at its core, is about fetishization, internalized transphobia, internalized racism, insecurity, and only being able to see a partner in the ways they are better than you instead of loving them as a whole.
11 notes
·
View notes
Note
Honestly, I think we can agree that actually believing in "propaganda" like "In North Korea people who smile go to jail" or "In North Korea everyone has to have the same haircut" is stupid BUT also believing that a country as "closed" as that is a paradise...? Also stupid. One of the biggest issues I have with white Twitter communists is using the lack safety for social minorities in Western countries against them but acting like North Korea is somehow a LGBTQ friendly and Feminist paradise LOL Are they feminists because they obligate their women to serve the army? Are they allies to the LGBTQ community because they don't throw gay people of buildings? The bar is low
yes all of this! it makes me feel crazy when people talk about these things as if theyâre black and white. you must believe north korea is a utopia and all criticism is propaganda, or you must believe that people who blink wrong are jailed and capitalism is the only way to prevent that from happening to You - removing all nuance from the conversation. i donât think this is exactly the right use of the term but i feel part of the problem is people getting caught up in the âidentityâ of it all, as in theyâre overly concerned with what a neocommunist is supposed to believe over using critical thinking. yes technically a marxist would show support for communism in communist countries, but common sense would dictate that since millions of people say that theyâve suffered greatly under these regimes maybe it actually isnât good in these places. people are too focused on what makes them look like the most progressive person when in actuality they are being oppressive when silencing refugees and creating conspiracies to dismiss their stories.
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Not dark per se, but definitely a NPD confession that I dont feel I can share elsewhere.
I actually Do want to collect "oppression points." I like being part of marginalized groups because it makes me feel special and being the victim in situations makes brain go brr. I dont go so far as faking things to feel oppressed, but I do take pleasure in being plural/disabled/queer/trans/cluster B/autistic/a trauma survivor/etc (which I am) partly because I like feeling special.
(Disclaimer this is not to say that discrimination and hatred based on these things does not affect me negatively. I do experience and struggle with ableism and queerphobia and other things.)
i can't believe my eyes because i genuinely thought no one else felt this way and im so relieved to know im not the only one. this is tough with my severe impulsivity too because sometimes i impulsively come out in situations where i KNOW i'm not safe just because i impulsively want attention and sympathy.
i think the problem with the whole thing surrounding "oppression points" is that most often, it's just a term pulled out by marginalized people who have fallen into the trap of respectability politics, to describe people who don't fit their worldview. for example, autistic people who i've seen shit on autigender people because "IM autistic and IIIII understand gender so why can't you". and just look at the endless cycle of exclusionism within the queer community. it's always that we "just want oppression points to be special" but the whole problem in the first place is that we've made oppression out to be something special in the first place! the online world has placed a hierarchy on who is coolest and most valuable based on how many marginalized identities they have. we've created this idea that being marginalized is "cool". sure, it can be a big part of your identity but i've met so many people online who genuinely believed they were cooler and more interesting than cishets just by virtue of having a different gender modality or sexuality and i've also met so so many cishets and guys whose mental health has genuinely plummetted because they think they are not cool because they have no or very few marginalized identities and it's like. being gay or trans or nd or disabled IS cool, but it's not what MAKES YOU COOL! no one is inherently better than anyone else based on unchangeable aspects of their identity because your morality is based on what you choose and how you act, not just who you are. i'm not saying "aw boohoo white cishets are so oppressed" because that's bullshit, but i do think it's ridiculous how much we've turned marginalization into a competition of cool points. you can have as much pride in your marginalized identity as you want but you are not morally better just by virtue of being an Oppressed Person. so that's why this whole "oppression points" thing has taken off and instead of criticizing the hierarchy of oppression-based worth and value that's contributed to it, people just blame other marginalized people for being the "wrong" kind of queer or nd. there's nothing wrong with liking having multiple marginalizations and enjoying the attention from it, it's just when it becomes, like you said, something that people take as paradigm for peoples value or "coolness" and fake stuff because they think it'll make them cooler, when it's a problem like babe no! you are not a boring person just cuz you're cis or straight or nt or abled or white or whatever you have a personality and a life and a value. if people realized that they had value outside of societal checklists and boxes, then people making fun of other marginalized people for being supposed "fakers wanting oppression points" will die down. (none of this is said to invalidate you it's just my take on the nuance of the whole 'oppression points' thing.)
38 notes
·
View notes
Note
Ok but for someone who says they donât care or are suppose allyâs to women you get really upset at women/ terfs Iâm saying this as a gay trans masc you need to chill bc this just gives them receipts that all trans women are men who are misgonistic and violent seriously stop replying to them if it really doesnât bother you
Lord have mercy, I'm going to summon the patience to respond, and give you the response this deserves. I'm going to level with you
I have never clarified what my gender identity is beyond "they/them" because I didn't believe my identity mattered beyond, only the content of my words. But if this needs clarification I will provide it so no one misunderstands me. I am not a trans woman. I believe this discourse shouldn't have to be done by trans women exclusively. Why must someone who opposes bigots be marginalized? Why must the marginalized fight the bigotry in their own oppression? Why can't I, a gnc cis passing queer woman be absolutely appalled and moved with rage at how awful these cosplay conservatives tarnish the very lavel activism with their existence?
It's not fucking fair how little people get in the world to help, and they get even less the more layers of intersectionality we get. And the lower you get the less society cares about you. The only thing you can turn to is fucking activism when you get so oppressed everyone has a fucking reason to hate you. So you join feminist circles to gain community, and a twisted fucking surprise, even the people who claim to care about gender liberation "feminists" dont care.
I'm allowed to find the struggles of others maddening, in the same way I would hope good white allies to find racism maddening or men to find sexism infuriating. If you're a good ally you should be MAD that someone of your same intersectionality can't just fucking treat people right.
It shouldn't be on trans women to take the brunt of this, or insist everyone ignores them. They don't ignore trans women! They go to safe spaces for women and harasses them, disseminates their photos, their information, and relentlessly bully them! Respectfully, I do not see how I am guilty for the anger I feel for the complete blatant acts of human depravity it is to bully a group of women who have a scary high suicide rate. By not talking about it and just expecting people to fight this issue with silence, I believe that we don't provide adequate community.
It is not just enough to be not a transmisogynist, you have to be anti-transmisogynists. I should not have to put my life in danger by standing up for black people in a room of trump supporters. But a white person should use what privilege they have to stand up for what's right. If I expect allies to do that for me, I need to do that for groups I'm allied with.
Thank you for reaching out. And in situations like these please, think about what you say. I believe you intended good with this post, but I also believe you could reflect on your words. I don't believe it's fair to call a black women aggressive for anger.
No minority should be responsible for the whole group of people, it's not fair to make minorities play by their bigots rules to be respected. Basic human respect shouldn't be earned through respectability politics.
#I don't really feel super comfortable talking about my gender identity on this blog#i don't personally feel comfortable with phone people sleuthing my gender identity#i feel really nervous talking about my gender identity#so much so i almost deleted it many times#but i figured it should happen eventually#please me nice to me in the comments if there are any#đ#ask answered#terf mention#cissexism tw#radfem mention#racism mention#transmisoyny tw#violent transmisoyny tw#trans suicide rates tw#suicide tw#suicide mention#anti semitism mention#racism tw#long post
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
so often i'll try to talk to other white people about racism and their inherent privilege and they'll hit me with a "whaaaat? no, i can't be racist, im good! I'm good! I don't see colour, i'm not racist!"
and im just instantly stuck in that conversation. i'll tell them that privilege isn't like. a sin. you're not bad for being privileged, you just have to be aware of the privilege and try to avoid situations where it is exercised over others and stuff like, it's not even some constant dread, really. like i'm basically saying "you basically have a loaded gun towards some people, and you have to be careful to not hit someone. even if you never intend to hit someone, you might still accidentally shoot them. you need to be aware of the danger you can unintentionally bring to people you have privilege over, and try to avoid it as best you can. but you're not Evil for having the privilege." (i don't use the gun metaphor because i know it'll turn people off to it, but like, i think it's apt.)
but i'm always just met with another "i'm not privileged im not racist, i'm good!" even if i tell them it's not a personal failing to hold privilege over someone, it's just a fact of like. being alive. and like a lot of people carry different privileges, yk, white people vs people of colour, abled people vs disabled people, straight people vs gay people, cis people vs trans people.
being aware of the privileges you hold over others and being able to prevent them from harming others is important, because, again, it can lead to the person you hold privilege over being hurt, sometimes put into a situation where they're seen as being horrible and unreasonable, but sometimes it can lead to them losing their jobs, or their homes, or their lives. you know?
and then that. is often met with an "im not bad tho, im gay/trans/disabled/etc, i can't be racist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist/etc." and it's just, so hard to get through to people that you're not part of some Evil Group for having privilege, and being afraid to acknowledge it just means you won't have the awareness, and you might accidentally harm others because of your lack of awareness.
and like, your own area where you're oppressed and face challenges doesn't mean you can't hold privilege over others in different areas.
like, i'm a relatively small white woman who walks with a cane (well, crutches now, but i'm hoping to get back to my cane or even better with PT), and I approached a black man who was being harassed by the cops for being passed out in the sun this summer, and offered to get him a drink, because I wasn't sure how long he was in the sun. and the cops IMMEDIATELY jumped to be like "Oh! maam are you okay? is he bothering you? are you safe?" and i had to diffuse that situation. I literally Approached Him to offer help, and the cops immediately acted as though he was aggressing on me.
that is a clear indication of my privilege over him, in that situation. it doesn't mean I was bad for being there, i mean, i was literally trying to help him out. and like, i'm disabled and lgbt and a woman. but that doesn't mean i still didn't hold privilege over him. (i don't know if he's disabled or lgbt or anything myself, all i know is that he was passed out on the side of the road when it was 95 degrees outside). the cops literally saw me approach him to talk to him, and then asked me if HE was bothering ME. in that situation, regardless of my intent, my privilege was clearly put on display, and none of my disability, nor womanhood, nor lgbt identity negated that privilege.
it cannot be negated, it can only be navigated with care. and it's not a sin to hold privilege over someone. you're not doing something wrong by being privileged, and you have the opportunity to use that privilege for good instead, for example, intervening to protect someone who is being aggressed upon.
it's a part of life that I would also love to be gone, but pretending I don't have it won't make it go away.
lot of people take the idea they might be an oppressor like it's some kind of curse or marks them or makes them fundamentally irredeemable.
this means whenever someone suggests they might have structural power over some group, rather than being normal about it and going "oh yeah i should be mindful of how i act so i don't abuse that," they take it as a personal attack, and either jump to defending themselves by denying it, or start lashing out.
this makes 99.99999% of all conversations on this website completely fucking unbearable.
#i'm pretty sure the original post is about transmisogyny but i wanted to add in racism because it's a BIG one#people do NOT like to be told that they can be racist even accidentally
9K notes
·
View notes
Note
I just don't understand how trans men are supposed to be holding power over trans women when we're. Not recognized as men. We're treated like Failed Women, not as men. And "passing" trans men only ever get "power" because they have to hide who they are.
Just like bi people don't oppress gay people, I don't think erasure/stealthing can ever be "privilege". It's just another way to suffer
Youre right that it depends, it depends on how society is viewing the people involved. Just like there are lightskinned black people who could pass as white, they could wield white privilege in situations depending on the situation, but theyre still black, and can just as well have racism wielded against them in other situations. Being a man doesnt oppress somebody, but being a man and perceived in the eyes of others as such gives you the same power of men in a patriarchal society. if you want a concrete example, there are jobs that a transwoman would be passed over for that a transman would get instead because shes a woman, and hes a man. That is a privilege he has over her, not because of something he did, but how patriarchal society works to put men over women, thats misogyny at work. This is assuming that they are both not out. if any of them were out a cisman would be found in their place, that is transphobic oppression at work. I understand how it feels extremely unfair to have this privilege at the same time as staring down the barrel of transphobic oppression, and yes that is extremely unfair and sucks ass. But it doesnt mean transmen don't have that privilege, they do. you bring up sexuality, but i'm fairly sure there have been similar discourses between lesbians and gay men, gay men face homophobia, which some would argue is a form of misogyny. Being seen as "lesser" men for being effeminate, or doing things women are "supposed" to do. Bear in mind i'm talking from the way patriarchal society pushes us. But still being men enables them to wield misogyny towards lesbians. so even if they share an identity in being homosexual, and share a struggle in being oppressed by homophobia and misogyny, gay men still have male privilege, if they are perceived as men in that instance. I want to be super clear about this. when someone says "you hold power over these people because you are a man". It doesnt necessarily mean that you have ever acted to harm anybody, it only means that you have the MEANS to do so. And that saying that you have the means to harm these people, is meant to serve as "with great power comes great responsibility". Youre not meant to grovel, or be ashamed for who you are, but you are expected to try your best not to do harm, and to try to be aware of how you could harm. I don't know you or your identity, but if you are in a marginalized group, I'm sure you've suffered for it in one way or another, and whoever harmed you for that held this kind of societal power over you in that moment. knowing that society frowns on you, they used it against you. That is the power a man can hold over a nonman, in a situation where both are percieved as such. as for stealthing, or passing, whatever the terms, i agree people should be able to live as their true selves, and that it is transphobic oppression that lead transmen and transwomen, and nonbinary poeple not to be out, as passing or not passing. that is a struggle that they share. But it doesnt mean men cannot wield misogyny towards women. I hope i'm making sense, because i really don't want anyone to believe that them being a man is what causes harm in the world. choose to be anyone you want, become anyone you want, take back youre true self from the world. just be aware of what you can do to help and harm, and act responsibly with whatever you gain and hope others do the same for whatever you lose.
1 note
·
View note
Text
It should be noted by point in bringing up Cheleanor wasn't to say "oh it's hated on" (because as someone who only watched TGP after it ended I never really encountered hate about it so I can't really speak on that? I'm sure there is some, especially considering it's a biracial relationship and people always get so pissy about white queer women being in love with black guys but that's a topic for a whole other post) or "oh we shouldn't call them this or that" (but I do prefer for them to be called m/f BECAUSE of the rampant bi erasure in fandoms, so calling them het leaves a bad taste in my mouth but that is literally personal opinion)
It's to say that I have seen Cheleanor referred to as if it is an exception. (And that often times Eleanor's bisexuality is erased within referring to it as an exception)
I bring it up because of the attitudes that go around of "oh all m/f ships are boring EXCEPT this one" or "the only m/f ship I respect" and Cheleanor was the first prominent example I could think of, where it's that good m/f ships are thought of as some "exception"
In general the whole point of this post is that:
A.) people will pass off other biases that may be present simply to say that "oh it's boring because it's 'straight'" rather than, say, "oh it's boring because the female lead is being written in such a way where the author is sanding her down to make her more 'appealing'" (this is my point about media literacy)
B.) this idea that there are only a "few good ones" or "m/f is inherently boring" or even "ew they're straight" bounces back onto people who are in those relationships in real life!! This is not just a commentary on fandom!! This is a commentary on the amount of legitimate biphobia that exists within the LGBTQ+ community because there are sections that legitmately believe "the straights" to be our enemy! And we pass that vitriol onto the next generation!
It doesn't matter if it is a joke! It gets normalized for younger members of the community and it creates this genuine idea that a bi person dating someone of the opposite gender, or a straight aro and/or ace person is inherently betraying their community!! This even harms nonbinary people who are in what are perceived as "straight" relationships or even transhet people! There are parts of your community that are legitimately hetero in some way! Saying "ew the hets" JUST HARMS THEM!! THERE ARE MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE CISHET!! BUT SOME PART OF THEIR IDENTITY LANDS THEM IN THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY!!!!
Even then! There are fucking allies! And we need to understand that these allies can be VITAL at times! We cannot act like these people are inherently our enemy!!! Its systems of systemic oppression that are our enemy!!
C.) The amount of blatant misogyny that creates this phenomenon!! There is a very specific reason I brought up specifically yaoi ships! Because there is an unwillingness to engage with female characters!!
That isn't to say that this biphobia isn't present within yuri shippers, I've been in the warrior cats fandom! I've fucking seen people be fucking weird about Fernsong because everyone hced Ivypool as a lesbian! There was a lot of biphobia there! Biphobia is present in so many different spaces!
But my point with bringing up yaoi is because I will see certain male characters (I made the original of this post about Goro fucking Akechi) who will have absolutely fascinating relationships with female characters BUT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE SECTS OF THE FANDOM THAT ACT LIKE THE MALE CHARACTER IS "SO GAY" THAT HE WOULD DIE IF HE HAD TO TALK TO A WOMAN?????? There are people who just create the most misogynistic bitchy gay boys for their, half the time, bland ass yaoi ships and its infuriating!
Or there is the fucking age old behavior of hating a woman character (OFTEN TIMES IT IS A FUCKING BROWN WOMAN IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO WHITE MEN) because they "got in the way" of their gay ship. Which then leads to some insanely vitriolic shit about that woman and half the time towards the fucking actor who plays them if it's a live action media!!
This post is first and foremost about the idea that a queer person dating someone of the opposite gender is betraying their community and how that plays into fandom spaces but the misogyny is also very much a KEY FACTOR HERE.
Sometimes. The "het" ship is more compelling than the yaoi. I know. It's crazy. But it's true.
3K notes
·
View notes
Note
Isn't it idk weird how the default language for LGBT history is "queer"? Like, you'll see articles talking about old gay men or something and the article will call them queer even tho statistically older LGBT people (and gay men in particular) are the least likely to reclaim the term. And as someone outside the Anglosphere, to me it's always been... uncomfortable how "queer" has been soft powered into the LGBT communities of countries that don't have English as a language. idk ppl are weird
It's easy to guess why this is happening.
A. It's because a lot of cishets are happy to finally have a chance to use a slur without being called out. (And a lot are now claiming the term for themselves.)
B. A lot of LGBT people who use the term "queer" history and "queer" community are the type who haven't been involved in the community but think using a vague, broad term wil be more inclusive... not of marginalized people but of THEM. Rather than acknowledge the specific people and identities involved in specific historical events, it's now OUR history, OUR elders. It's a way to obfuscate their own minimal involvement and claim all LGBT history for themselves.
To be specific, it's like the people who use "We're here, we're queer, get over it" at people who ask to not be called queer. By invoking a "queer" history and making it THEIRS, despite them VERY MUCH not being part of that history, they think it makes their point more powerful.
Everything in the community belongs to everyone. No individual identity and conflict is allowed to be acknowledged. We can't acknowledge the fact that sometimes we have competing needs/wants or ideological disagreements or other oppressive dynamics at play (cis people vs trans people, white lgbt people vs lgbt people of color, etc). We are an amorphous, queer blob that anyone can pull apart like taffy and claim.
This is a lot of people with privilege who want to cosplay as the most marginalized people in the community. And then wield that marginalization as a badge of honor, as ethos, as "understanding."
I'm gonna be real with y'all. Most LGBT history has left most of us untouched, not just because we weren't alive back then, but because other forms of privilege would have shielded us from the worst of it. Or because we would be too cowardly to get involved in the actual movement. Or because we disagreed with the politics involved.
We can't blanket-term our way into reclaiming a history that in no way was truly OURS. We can talk about how we are maybe reliving echoes of it now or how the fall out of it can still be felt today.
But we can't act like Stonewall, the AIDS Crisis, the Lavender Scare is universally "ours." As if we have a bond with the people who lived through that shit.
ESPECIALLY if you are only doing such to lord that connection over other LGBT people to make some point or bully them into using language that makes them uncomfortable or traumatized.
45 notes
·
View notes
Note
How do you respond to someone saying that radfems are to trans people the same as white women who falsely accuse black people to instigate violence against them because they donât commit the physical act of violence but they instigate it through what they say and remove themselves from blame?
there are three main flaws with this train of thought:
1st: axes of oppression. radfems are so insistent on female-specific language, resources, and rights because on the axes of sex, males oppress females. it is specifically because of our female bodies (what they can provide to men in terms of pleasure, reproduction, and power, as well as the assumptions they make about what is inherent to our sex that makes us inferior to males) that men have oppressed us for basically all of recorded human history. to your point, on the axis of race, white people oppress black people. a white person falsely accusing a black person is a form of racism. a feminist (i.e. a woman defending the importance of sex-based rights and activism towards the liberation of women from a violent global culture of male supremacy) providing a sourced argument for why males of any identity should not be allowed into female-only spaces (because ffs our oppression is not identity based, it is sex based and we can't identify out of our sex) is an instance of someone from an oppressed class speaking out about an oppressor class infringing on protected rights. e.g. a trans woman should not be any more entitled to a women-in-STEM grant than Rachel dolezal should be entitled to an exclusively black scholarship; neither can identify out of the privilege of their class, whether sex or race. the comparison of the oppressed class to the oppressor class is the same un-contextualised flawed thinking that yields the idea of 'reverse racism'.
2nd: in the argument you're providing, the white accuser is lying. that's not to say radfems never lie, I've seen misinformation around like it everywhere online. but we have valid and well-sourced concerns with the trans movement and the particular faction of rabid activists sending graphic rape threats and pretending to be "sex-blind" (as if that's going to eliminate sexism anymore than being 'race-blind' is going to end racism) to the point where they come right back around to supporting male supremacy because they never challenged their underlying socialised assumptions about sex and sexuality in any way that didn't win them performative virtue points online. we're not lying when we point to direct examples of trans activists telling gay men and lesbian women that they're transphobic for being exclusively same-sex attracted and not validating trans identities using socially-coerced "PIV" sex as a form of activism. we're not lying when we point to the horrifying calls for explicitly-misogynistic violence against women who are just insisting on maintaining the sex-based protections feminists fought centuries for.
3rd: this argument blames women for violence unrelated to our actions. in the comparison, the white women are falsely accusing people of the class they oppress in order to instigate violence against them. in the case of radfems, we are calling attention to the oppressive actions of the oppressor class to get them to fucking stop. I don't want trans people to get hurt or killed. I think hate crimes against GNC individuals, often because they're perceived as gay, are abhorrent and I do not encourage anything like that. there is a tendency to view women's (particularly feminists') words as violent because of how fundamentally they might challenge the institution of male supremacy (i.e. the patriarchy). JKR, as the glaring recent example, said absolutely 0 inciting violence against trans people; all she said was that sex-based rights are still important and that the trans movement was stepping on our toes a bit in a way that was excusing dangerous males for violating women's protected resources. and of course she's getting burned in effigy. im not here shouting "death to all trans" through a megaphone, because that's honestly not what I believe at fucking all. but my words about sex-based oppression and attraction on this website have gotten me called a Nazi. and in any case, the eclipsingly vast majority of violence against trans people is committed by homophobic men; when have they ever listened to the urgings of feminists?
104 notes
·
View notes
Note
hi! i was wondering if you, as the one running this, would consider your data to be exclusively pertaining to english speakers, or if in the future you would like to have more opportunity for non-english speakers to participate? would you consider the lack of non-english/culture specific terms to be missing data, or is that not the sort of data you're looking for? would it make things too complicated to moderate/measure? (i got to analyze the data in stats class + it really piqued my curiosity!)
This is a great ask, because itâs brought up in the feedback box of the survey quite often and I have a lot of thoughts about it but I have just never gotten around to responding to it properly!
i was wondering if you [...] would consider your data to be exclusively pertaining to english speakers, or if in the future you would like to have more opportunity for non-english speakers to participate?
I am not 100% sure that I know what you mean by non-English speakers, so I will answer both versions of the question to cover all the bases!
I am very happy for people who speak languages other than English to participate, and I specify in the survey: âIt's okay to enter non-English words that you would use to describe yourself while speaking English.â Thatâs how languages grow, right? Words get transplanted between languages all the time, and everyone knows that English is about 17 languages in a trenchcoat. For example, people often choose or type in words like âneutroisâ and âmaveriqueâ, which may or may not originate from the French language itself. Ayâlonit (Hebrew) and TakatÄpui (MÄori) have been quite common in recent years, off the top of my head.
I canât run a survey for people who donât speak English.
Ethnologue tells me there are over 7,000 living languages, although 23 languages account for over half of the worldâs population. I speak 1.02 languages. (English, and a little French.)
Hereâs a selection of issues that I would run into for those 7,000+ other languages if I were to run the survey in more languages:
As a person who only fluently speaks English, do I have the expertise to run this survey in any language I do not speak at all?
Do I translate the survey into other languages? If so, which ones, and how? If not, I am limiting responses to people who speak another language and English - is that ethically okay? Would it produce biased data?
In some languages sex and gender are indistinguishable. How would I change the identity question to ask about [sex/gender] sensitively [in a language I have never spoken], as someone who has never encountered this mindset personally and has no knowledge of how trans people growing up with this language feel about this issue?
For the title question, if I ask native speakers for a selection of titles (standard and gender-neutral) in their language, how will I know whoâs trolling if I donât speak the language? What about the languages where titles are just not used?
For the pronoun question, English pronoun sets have five forms: subject, object, dependent possessive (determiner), independent possessive, reflexive. Other languages have more than five, and others have fewer than five. How are those neopronoun sets formatted in writing when communicating your pronouns to others? What about languages where, unlike in English, pronouns are an open class - would I need to change that question in some way?
For any language that is not English, how would I spot and remove trolls, abusive TERFs, etc? Bigotry can have nuance, where something can seem superficially inoffensive while actually being transphobic/bigotry/trolling (e.g. concern-trolling), and realistically only a native-speaker or someone who is very familiar with nonbinary-specific trans issues in that language/culture would be able to recognise it.
A lot of these questions are themselves shaped by my limited worldview as a person who only fluently speaks English, and thatâs before we get to my being white and from a country whose empire covered a quarter of the globe. The actions of my ancestors decimated whole peoples, many of whom had genders that were not what I would consider binary. The fundamental concept of the gender binary is rooted in historical white Western acts of oppression and worse.
No doubt there are questions that should be in the list above that I wouldnât even be able to conceptualise. As people often point out in the feedback box, the survey is super white - it is very obviously designed by and mostly filled in by white people, the whole concept of the gender binary and genders outside of the binary being deviant is extremely white-Western, and I donât even know enough to know how to start overcoming that. All I really know to do right now is read and listen to all the feedback box entries as best I can, keep researching interesting genders from across the globe and throughout history, and take extra care to combine and count all the various spellings of non-white, non-English gender identities so that they can be added to the checkbox list if they go over the 1% threshold. (Part of this process has led me to learn that in a lot of cultures âtransâ and âLGBâ are not necessarily separate parts of someoneâs identity/character the way they are in most white Western cultures that Iâve encountered, and thatâs a big part of why Iâve enthusiastically added lesbian and gay as identity words in relation to gender in this yearâs survey.)
But if we sidestep all of that (nope), the answer to a lot of these questions is: recruit people who speak those other languages natively. At that point I become a manager! Instead of being a 2-3 month per year task, the Gender Census would become a year-long management job without pay, and I wouldnât be able to run the English version of the Gender Census. Even if I had the skills and executive function for that (and I donât), Iâm not here to be a manager, Iâm here to read and process 40,000+ gender identities and play with spreadsheets, you know?
So Iâve concluded that itâs inappropriate for me to run the survey in other languages, I would also be incapable, and even if neither of those things were true it just wouldnât make me happy. It seems more fitting for me to support, endorse and amplify the voices of people running similar surveys in other languages, which I do try to do.
would you consider the lack of non-english/culture specific terms to be missing data, or is that not the sort of data you're looking for?
I do like to learn about non-English specific terms, and that data is not missing. The questions specify âwhile speaking Englishâ, and people enter non-English identity words, titles and pronouns all the time. They donât ever go over 1%, but they are typed in and they are counted. I love to learn about them, and anyone downloading the data will be able to learn about them too.
I canât hope to include the âwhile speaking a language other than Englishâ data in the survey as things currently stand, so thatâs not the sort of data Iâm looking for.
91 notes
·
View notes
Text
I've been sitting on this post since I saw it on my feed because something is being demonstrated here about one of the biggest misunderstandings people often have about intersectionality as a framework of approach. I have absolutely no idea if I can articulate my thoughts in a way that can be heard, but I think I need to try.
I'm feeling a resonance to growing up hearing white people breaking down their ethnic background into rigid fractions purely based on which relative last lived in the old world. We've all seen the math. 20% Irish, 50% English, â
Cherokee on my mother's father's side.
Except that they got to that math by subtracting their "ethnic eccentricities" from a default White American Experience. In this framework, one imagines A Person as being the same as the hegemonic default, with each "marginalized intersection of identity" acting as a sifting filter that removes your access to certain Personhood Privileges. At one end of the experience is the Unfiltered Person, wholly privileged and never at a disadvantage. At the other, the Most Oppressed Class in America, with their scant smattering of remaining humanity at the bottom of a tall tower of sifting trays. To be marginalized in some way is to be Without Privilege, as if privilege and oppression are mutually exclusive states of existence. A black man is no longer fully a man because he is black, and therefore while "he still has male peivilege" the assumption is that some of these privileges aren't accessible to him. That one can confidently say "these are the male privileges a black man doesn't have, but always remember that he's still more privileged abd therefore less disadvantaged than any woman."
This obviously makes (white) people squirmy because they recognize they're treading into territory of "white women are more oppressed than black men" which is an argument with immediate and obvious counter (see above). But trying to walk this tightrope allows them to leave the underlying framework of hierarchy within systemic oppression while laying claim to "intersectional" politick.
Perhaps the black man isn't MORE privileged than a white woman, but at least **equally so on a different axis**. Perhaps he can both oppress and be oppressed because his manhood is inherently dominating, but his blackness is inherently deemed subservient?
Except that black men aren't (only) harmed by systemic oppression in the direction of timidity/subservience. Their perceived "hyper-aggression" is itself a form of embodied violence against them.
So perhaps it's not about positioning, it's about the manner of violence! Surely we could claim that black WOMEN are the ones who experience sexualized/gendered racial violence, while black men only experience *racial* violence!
Except that's not true either. Racial violence against black men has ALWAYS been gendered, and OFTEN been sexualized. Black men and boys being treated as inherent sexual predators ISN'T because they are men. It's because they are black men. For decades, we have understood that positioning men from racial minority groups as inherently hyper-masculine and as default potential sexual predators has been used as described above to enact gendered violence (e.g. revenge killings related to the "ruin" of a family woman). But we have also understood for just as long that it is also used to deny the higher rates of sexual abuse these racialized men and boys endure (see the positioning of racialized "othered" men and boys who are raped using phalluses and phallic like objects by members of the dominant racial group, often REGARDLESS of the gender of the perpatrator).
But to acknowledge that black men experience gendered and sexualized racial violence, is to acknowledge that men of ALL groups may experience gendered and sexualized violence related to their marginalized identities. A concept easily confirmed simply by looking at the ways that trans men and gay/bi men experience gendered and sexualized queerphobic violence. Acknowledging these things means accepted that gendered violence is not the domain of women or other gender minorities, but rather **the impact** a person's gender has on how the violence they experience when they are exposed to systemic violence for ANY REASON.
I think this is the piece people struggle with. They imagine "axes" of oppression being different algorithms charted on a graph where each person inhabits the whole of the algorithm, and is simply experiencing separate but interacting relationships to systemic violence.
Instead I would recommend people imagine a spiderweb. Every web is unique in how it is woven around its spider. The different "threads" of self that make up the whole of "me" are not separate from each other but actively comingling, connecting and reconnecting, and entirely one comprehensive self that is far more than the sum if each thread combined. The web includes all the components of self at once, not distinct but in tandem with each other. A black man is no more "only black" than he can ever be "only a man". A man of mixed race is each of his races and is SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER- the **synthesis* of each of his races. That's what it MEANS for race to be a social construct. For gender to be a social construct. A man who is mixed black, white, and latino for example is never just black, never just white, never just latino. He is all of those things together and he is also NONE of those things, because he is HIM and race isn't actually something you can quantify.
We CHOOSE to construct meanings, and as long as we accept the premise that the meaning of each component of self is in any way separable from the others, we are truly failing to deconstruct the supremacy underlying those meanings. We NEED to understand that "privilege" is not a state of being. It is a permission slip from authority. The ENTIRE POINT is that as long as authority gets to decide whether or not you get to access your rights, then NO ONE HAS RIGHTS, because authority is far less worried about having an internally consistent logic between their prescribed (the values we SAY we have) and described (the values we are OBSERVED to have) values, and far more worried about wielding power to enforce their described values. They WILL happily revoke the permission slip to people who "aren't oppressed" for the simple reason that they ARE otherwise a threat to the dominant order (see the white preachers lynched alongside black civil rights protestors as "race traitors").
We need to be able to understand that intersectionality isn't about dividing people down into fractions of self. It is about recognizing the way every facet of self interacts and expands upon each other and themselves. If we can't get there? If we can't ACTUALLY let go of the hierarchies used to enforce the oppression? All the "good talking points" in the world mean literally fuck all.
So here is my problem with the "by virtue of being a man, you have to make your peace with the fact that some people will be uncomfortable with you, and thus you have to make yourself a safe person"
I've heard the same thing about being black. A lot of people have taken my very presence as hostility. I have had people escalate situations just because I am present as a black person in front of them. Before, and after transition.
You know what the problem with bending over backwards to make other people comfortable with your presence even though you haven't actually done anything to them besides breathe the same air?
It's never enough. You can be One Of The Good Ones for ages and at some point you will fail your Good One inspection and people will turn on you at the drop of a hat. People who you thought you had a good rapport with. People you thought were your friends.
I have *experienced* this, both online and in person.
The onus is on everyone to be safe people to be around. Singling someone out and blaming them for daring to share a demographic with someone else who has caused harm isn't cute when people do it to me because I'm black, and it's also not cute when they do it because I'm a man.
People are uncomfortable about my blackness all the time. I didn't magically stop experiencing racism when I started taking testosterone. So it's absolutely wild to me that people think "well, you know, with what you look like, some people won't want you around" is going to fly when I was explicitly taught *not* to tolerate that shit by every single one of my black relatives.
Someone doesn't like that I'm occupying a space? Well I'm not hurting them, so that's a them problem and not a me problem. That's how I've learned how to exist as black in white-majority spaces. Why do you think you can change the demographic and get me to agree with you?
#please for the love of god stop getting your complex understandings of socio-political power dynamics from 6paragraph tumblr posts#do you ACTUALLY THINK bell hooks and kimberly crenshaw and kwame ture and angela davis and everyone else who has dedicated lives to this#wrote dozens of novel length works on the subject for FUN????#do you actually think you can get the same contextualization from some random fuck on tumblr doing a 1500 word BOOK REPORT????#i am so deeply enraged and exhausted by everyone in this post who simply REFUSES to set aside the idea that hierarchy HAS to be there#get over yourself#the problem isn't that we're maintaining THE WRONG hierarchies motherfucker
14K notes
·
View notes
Text
Common questions about and excuses for racism in fandom
I noticed that the same excuses, justifications, and questions that have come up in response to racism in fandom over the years appear in the notes for my post, so hereâs a FAQ of sorts to address them. Hopefully, this will help people understand why these arguments donât stand up to scrutiny and have something to refer to in lieu of writing a new reply every time someone says these things.Â
Due to the length of this post, I made a Google doc for easier reading. Please note that several points are specific to the Marvel fandom and to the post linked above and are often M/M-focused (I explain why in that post), but generally speaking, the following can be applied to any fandom and various relationships.Â
TABLE OF CONTENTSÂ
I can ship whatever I want. Stop being the fandom police!
Shipping isnât activism.Â
Fandom is supposed to be fun. Being told what to do or not to do isnât fun.
I put a lot of different people in my works, and I do research about the groups theyâre in. For example, I have a *marginalized group here* character (e.g., disabled), and I did research to represent them accurately. Itâs not fair to say that I donât care about diversity.
I donât think people should write about POC if theyâre white, just like I wouldnât want anyone to talk about *insert topic youâre passionate about or interest group youâre in here* (e.g., the BDSM community) if they didnât know anything about it.
I really donât have any knowledge about what itâs like to be a POC, though, so maybe Iâm not the best person for this. If POC want to see themselves represented, they should make their own works.
Iâm not comfortable with writing POC as Iâm unfamiliar with the struggles they experience. I donât want my writing to come off as inauthentic, inaccurate, or offensive. Why are you saying itâs harmful to use this as a reason for abstaining from writing POC?
It doesnât make sense to include every single POC in my work.
What you said and the data you have donât necessarily point to racism. It might just be individual preference. I prefer certain ships over others, and it has nothing to do with race/I donât see color.
A big part of what informs my shipping is physical attraction or interest in the characters.
I donât ship _____ because I see them as brothers/sisters/siblings.
Some white characters and ships are popular in the MCU fandom because people bring in canon characterization or material from the comics to the character(s)/ship. Your MCU-only examination fails to account for ships with one character from the MCU and one from comics (e.g., MCU Bucky/616 Clint or Spideypool).
Some subfandoms just have fewer POC which means there will naturally be fewer ships featuring POC. To say that the Marvel fandom is racist as a whole is disingenuous; you can see how more diversity in the cast leads to more diverse ships in fanworks.
Some of the characters and ships are popular because white characters get the lionâs share of screen time and development or they appeared in canon earlier.
Is it racist to racebend a character?
Racist language in fics is more important than fandom representation.
My fanworks tend to focus on one ship and donât really include other characters in general. When they do, the others mostly talk about that relationship. Am I falling into the trap you mentioned?Â
I feel guilty about not including or writing about *character of colorâs name here*.
How do I ensure that I donât offend anyone if I include POC in my work?
What should I do to examine myself for any implicit biases?
The rest of the post is under the cut.
I can ship whatever I want. Stop being the fandom police!
As explicitly stated several times in my post, I agree that you can ship whatever you want. Iâm not targeting a specific ship. Iâm not telling you to stop shipping what you ship. All Iâm asking is for everyone, including myself and other POC, to regularly examine ourselves for any implicit biases. If youâre a multishipper, are all of your ships in the fandom white? If you only have one ship and itâs white, are most or all of your ships in your other/previous fandoms white? Is the only media you consume predominantly or all white?Â
Shipping isnât activism.Â
No, it isnât and in many cases, shouldnât be seen or treated as the same thing. However, by responding this way to POC who want to see themselves represented in fanworks more and not be ignored or written stereotypically, youâre telling us that our mere existence is a âpolitical issue.âÂ
Fandom is supposed to be fun. Being told what to do or not to do isnât fun.
It should be fun for us POC too, and itâs not when weâre consistently misrepresented or we donât exist in this fandom. By using this as an excuse to exclude POC from your works, youâre saying that only some people are allowed to have fun or that having fun is conditional. Also, no one is forcing you as an individual to do or not do anything. See two paragraphs above.
I put a lot of different people in my works, and I do research about the groups theyâre in. For example, I have a *marginalized group here* character (e.g., disabled), and I did research to represent them accurately. Itâs not fair to say that I donât care about diversity.
Just like you do research for those groups, you can easily do research on POC. Also, please be aware that this statement is similar to the âIâm not racist because I have a ___ friend/have a ___ person in my worksâ argument that many people use to prove theyâre not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. We arenât interchangeable with other groups.Â
I donât think people should write about POC if theyâre white, just like I wouldnât want anyone to talk about *insert topic youâre passionate about or interest group youâre in here* (e.g., the BDSM community) if they didnât know anything about it.
Something like BDSM is a lifestyle and preference. It is a choice. Being a POC isnât. We canât take off our identity every time we leave the house, the way you might keep it secret at work that youâre in the BDSM scene.Â
I really donât have any knowledge about what itâs like to be a POC, though, so maybe Iâm not the best person for this. If POC want to see themselves represented, they should make their own works.
We do. Also, all of us fanwork creators make works with characters who are different from us all the time. Fandom is largely composed of people who arenât straight cis men, yet the bulk of works on AO3 features characters who are canonically or implied to be straight cis men even if we end up changing that in our works. Most of us arenât billionaires, but we donât have a problem writing Tony. We donât know what itâs like to be a WWII-soldier-turned-brainwashed-assassin who was kept in cryo for decades except when deployed on missions, but we donât have a problem writing Bucky. The list goes on.
Iâm not comfortable with writing POC as Iâm unfamiliar with the struggles they experience. I donât want my writing to come off as inauthentic, inaccurate, or offensive. Why are you saying itâs harmful to use this as a reason for abstaining from writing POC?
Your concern isnât harmful. Reducing us to our trauma is, and youâre doing that if the reason youâre not comfortable with writing POC is that you donât know how to write our struggles. Weâre not only our pain. Weâre more than that.
Not every fic has to be about the trauma of being a POC. We deserve to have fun, silly fics in addition to serious, plotty drama. Weâre not thinking about our suffering 24/7 even if we do think about or are affected by it a lot. Itâs not like if you write a Sam/Bucky fic, Sam is going to randomly lecture Bucky about the history of Black people in the U.S. and modern enslavement through the prison industrial complex while Bucky is trailing kisses down his neck in bed. We donât need everyone being racist to MJ in a Pride and Prejudice AU. If you do want to include their struggles because that informs the way the characters think or act in your story, you can do so in ways that feel organic.Â
Additionally, this is an excuse that we hear often; you may have heard it as people in Hollywood have used it to explain why they donât have any, or at least any major, characters from marginalized groups in their works. If we allowed this excuse, an overwhelming majority of who we see in the media would be straight, cis white men considering who has power in the film and TV industryâand we would have to say thatâs okay. We would have to say that the only people allowed to write about a certain group are members of that group, e.g., only women can write women. Thatâs not acceptable especially considering the gatekeeping, oppression, and high barriers to entry and success that make it difficult for marginalized people to even be in the room let alone make a name for themselves.
Fandom is no different. Youâre saying that you canât relate to POC because youâre white, but none of us POC have any problems making fanworks with white characters even though we donât know what itâs like to be white. There are straight women who write fics about gay men and donât feel uncomfortable doing so when they donât know a single thing about being a gay man and the struggles of gay men (M/M can include bi or pan men, fics about gay men by straight women can sometimes include problematic portrayals, and straight men, queer women, and non-binary people write M/M too, but this is just an example).
You should be more careful when writing a POC if you're not a POC. The same goes for men writing women, cis people writing trans people, straight people writing queer people, able-bodied people writing disabled people, etc. However, there ARE ways to go about it, and while I understand the fear of messing up, the truth is everyone is racist, sexist, etc. Everyone including people in marginalized groups. Being a white lesbian doesnât mean you canât be racist. Being an Asian man doesnât mean you canât be sexist. You can see that within groups themselves. POC are not exempt from racism against other POC or from internalized racism against themselves or their own group. Women aren't free from internalized misogyny. The best we can do is to not make that prevent us from making inclusive works; if you make a mistake, which may happen, all we can ask is that you try your best to be open to feedback and grow.Â
It doesnât make sense to include every single POC in my work.
No one is telling you to. Choose characters who make sense for the story. Donât choose them just so you have a POC in your work. We donât want them to be tokenized.Â
What you said and the data you have donât necessarily point to racism. It might just be individual preference. I prefer certain ships over others, and it has nothing to do with race/I donât see color.
This argument is identical to the ânot all _____â rebuttal (ânot all men,â ânot all white people,â etc.) which places the blame on a few lone individuals and shifts the conversation away from an existing widespread problem. When thereâs a consistent pattern and there are many examples of it both within the fandom and in other fandoms, it no longer is about individual preference.Â
I urge you to consider the following:
If most people say they donât write about or include a POC in their work because itâs too difficult or theyâre afraid of making that character inauthentic, but they donât seem to have an issue with writing other characters from groups theyâre not in (e.g., if youâre a straight woman who writes a lot of M/M fics despite not knowing what itâs like to be a bi, pan, or gay man), doesnât that say something?
If most people have the same reasons you do about not being interested in POC (e.g., âtheyâre not fleshed out enoughâ while being interested in or fleshing out minor white characters who get the same or even less development as those characters) or ships with POC (e.g., saying âtheyâre like brothersâ while being interested in a white ship with similar dynamics and tropes or seeing why other people might ship it if you donât), doesnât that say something?
If most people give characters of color the same roles in their works even if that makes them OOC and/or the role reduces them to a (frequently stereotypical) trope, especially if theyâre never fleshed out beyond that trope (e.g., the funny sidekick, wise friend who always helps or gives advice/free therapy, or responsible, mature, and sometimes stern friend who âparentsâ the protagonist), isnât that saying something?
If race truly isnât a factor for you when it comes to liking characters and ships, then this isnât about you and you donât have to distract people from the conversation by announcing that. That said, we should all look at characters and ships we like anyway instead of assuming thatâs the case as thatâs good practice. How much of your list is white? If itâs mostly or entirely white, why is that the case and why do you feel differently about ships of color?
A big part of what informs my shipping is physical attraction or interest in the characters.
What characters and actors do you find attractive or interesting? Are they all or mostly white? If they arenât, are you drawn to any ships that include those POC? Refer to the section above.
I donât ship _____ because I see them as brothers/sisters/siblings.
Part of this is preference as it comes down to perceived chemistry and relationship dynamics. However, POC are often not seen as romantic leads both in fanworks and the media and are just friends or âbrothers/sistersâ (this is why Crazy Rich Asians was a big deal). Sometimes, people even argue against POC being or having love interests in the name of diversity. You see this a lot with WOC in the media where the explanation against a love interest is âsheâs a strong, independent woman who doesnât need a manâ; yes, they donât and sometimes the story doesnât need a romance, but WOC deserve love too and itâs strange that while white women can get the guy and be independent, WOC canât and it somehow belittles or reduces them if they do.Â
The way you can gauge whether itâs just preference at play or biases you may not have been aware of is to see how many relationships featuring a character of color fall under the âjust friends/siblingsâ category for you, what you need to ship something, and how you feel about white ships with the same type of relationship or same lack of chemistry. For instance, you may say that there needs to be enough interaction for you to ship something and thatâs why you donât care much for Rhodey/Sam. Do you feel the same way about Clint/Coulson then, which has much less interaction (actually much less than Rhodey/Sam in this case)? If itâs about chemistry, are Steve and Sam just âbrothers,â but Bruce and Thor arenât or, if you donât ship Bruce/Thor, you still âsee itâ and get why other people might be into it?
What do you ship, or what ships do you understand even if theyâre not for you, and how is that different from ships that follow the same beats? Why are Steve and Bucky not brothers, but Rhodey and Tony are (there are many parallels between the two relationshipsâand one can argue the latter is more nuancedâthan appears at first glance, and Rhodey/Tony can be just as sweet or angsty)? If you like the rivals/enemies-to-lovers or meet-ugly aspect to Steve/Tony, Sam/Bucky, Scott/Jimmy Woo, and MâBaku/TâChalla have that dynamic. You like that superior/subordinate-to-lovers dynamic that Clint/Coulson has? Coulson/Fury. Flirty meet-cutes or love/trust-at-first-sight? Steve/Sam.
Some white characters and ships are popular in the MCU fandom because people bring in canon characterization or material from the comics to the character(s)/ship. Your MCU-only examination fails to account for ships with one character from the MCU and one from comics (e.g., MCU Bucky/616 Clint or Spideypool).
I explained why I focused on the MCU here and that most of the fics that feature an MCU character and comics âverse character tend to be heavily or entirely MCU-influenced here.
Also, characters of color exist in the comics, cartoons, and games too. By this logic, Steve/Sam and Rhodey/Tony should be juggernauts in the MCU fandom considering the depth and history of the characters and relationships. Ask yourself why people are happy to ship MCU Spideypool, to draw on the comics for that relationship and even bring a non-MCU character into the MCU and write him based on his comics history and characterization. Ask yourself why people are unhappy with MCU Clintâs terrible writing and lack of characterization and decide to give him his 616 (usually Fraction-era) characterization. And then ask yourself why people donât do that for characters of color and then use â___ is a minor character/doesnât have much developmentâ as an excuse for why theyâre uninteresting or not shippable with others.
There are many strong and interesting relationships in the comics, but only a few make it to the MCU fandom and almost all, if not all, of them are white.
Some subfandoms just have fewer POC which means there will naturally be fewer ships featuring POC. To say that the Marvel fandom is racist as a whole is disingenuous; you can see how more diversity in the cast leads to more diverse ships in fanworks.
Itâs more important to see how many fanworks there are for ships of color in a fandom than how many ships of color there are in that fandom. See how few works there are for POC ships other than MJ/Peter in the MCU Spider-Man fandom despite the diversity of the cast. See how the most popular ships are white and three of them involve white characters from the Iron Man fandom (explain to me how Harley/Peter has over 1,000 works, but Ned/Peter has 436).Â
And sure, you can say almost all of the Black Panther ships feature a character of color so thereâs âmoreâ diversity, but see how few works there are for them and how works with a white character fare compare to POC-only ships (almost all have 100-200 or fewer fics, with many having so few that I didnât include them in the post, while BP ships with a white character have more works despite little to no interaction between the characters).Â
Both of these, by the way, are critical and box office hits with characters who are clearly supposed to be the faces of the MCU now that the OG6 are gone. Black Panther is an award-winning critical and box office hit, and it is, more than any other film in MCU history, a huge cultural phenomenon with tremendous impact. It broke so many records and milestones, and itâs STILL breaking and making them. It has the most nuanced and balanced ensemble cast with side characters just as three-dimensional as the lead, a rarity in MCU films. Yet, its tag only has 3,966 works, fewer in total for the whole fandom than some of the white M/M ships on this list. Even if you account for BP fanworks that may have been tagged as MCU instead of BP, the number is paltry as you can see in this post. People simply do not want to make fanworks for characters of color (in this case, specifically Black characters) and donât. Itâs not about how diverse or successful a film is.
Some of the characters and ships are popular because white characters get the lionâs share of screen time and development or they appeared in canon earlier.
Yes, thatâs true, but fandom has no problem catapulting white ships with minor characters into extreme popularity. See Clint/Coulson. See fics prioritizing Happy and having him show up more than Rhodey in Steve/Tony fics.Â
Itâs not about chronology. Many ships of color came before white ships as a whole and before white ships with the same white character they have. See Bucky/Clint vs. Bucky/Sam.Â
Lastly, please donât tell me how certain white M/M ships came to be to explain how theyâre exempt or how Iâm failing to consider other factors for their popularity. Iâve been in the fandom since 2012, and Iâve seen almost all of the white ships in the fandom be born or boom into popularity. Donât try to explain, for instance, that Clint/Coulson is big because Coulson has his own show and his fans followed him from the show (this logic falls flat when you look at something like Luke Cage); that ship became huge way before that happened and way before Agents of Shield became âbig.â Also, see the section above regarding screen time, development, and fame.Â
Is it racist to racebend a character?Â
Peopleâs opinions differ on racebendingâand often that comes from personal background and on the situationâso I canât speak on anyoneâs behalf. However, I think everyone can agree on the following:
Racebending a white character is not the same thing as whitewashing a POC. For example, making Tony Stark Indian vs. turning TâChalla white or as canonical examples, making Fury black in Ultimates and the MCU vs. making the Ancient One or the Maximoffs white. The latter (whitewashing TâChalla, the Ancient One, and the Maximoff twins) is racist for various reasons. Thereâs a long history of POC being erased and white people taking roles from POC, a huge imbalance in representation between white people and POC, the unfortunate perception by the public and media that âwhite = neutral/standardâ (Bruceâs whiteness doesnât define his characterization and development), and the way race plays a role in influencing the way POC feel, act, and are treated.
Racebending a POC from one ethnicity or racial group to another is also problematic as weâre not interchangeable. Hollywood often does this and goes, âBut theyâre still a POC! Weâre being diverse!âÂ
In general, people who racebend white characters to POC want to see more POC in canon and in the media! These arenât mutually exclusive.
Sometimes people racebend because theyâre not represented at all in their works. (This happens with other marginalized groups too; for instance, some people make cis characters trans in their fanworks as there are few to no trans characters in the canonical source.) For example, there are, as of now, no Latinx superheroes in the MCU films. Even if people wanted to, they canât make works with an MCU Latinx superhero unless they bring one from the comics or the one Latinx superhero from Agents of Shield (if they know the comics or AoS), make a minor Latinx film character like Luis a superhero, or racebend their favorite white character and put a fresh spin on the character, drawing from their personal experience and background.
Thereâs a massive difference between fans racebending a character and a creator taking credit by pretending they viewed a character as non-white or didnât see race all along when itâs clear that the character is canonically white (this is different from a creator saying they support anyone, POC or white, playing that character onscreen or onstage).Â
Racist language in fics is more important than fandom representation.
We donât have to pick our battles. Both are important! I focused on fandom representation as itâs much more quantifiable and easy to find and analyze data for than racist language on a fandom-wide scale on my own without any tools. Youâre right that the latter is a problem as is racist representation in fanworks, though.Â
My fanworks tend to focus on one ship and donât really include other characters in general. When they do, the others mostly talk about that relationship. Am I falling into the trap you mentioned?
If the story is about a relationship (examining that relationship and the feelings of the characters in it) and there isnât much of a plot outside of that, then that makes sense. However, even in situations like this, consider how much time you dedicate to characters of color vs. white characters. If the story is about a ship featuring a POC, do you spend more time on the white character of that relationship? Their white friends and how they feel about that relationship? If itâs about a white ship, do white side characters appear more than side characters of color even if the latter have a closer relationship with the protagonists? For example, does Wanda show up more than Sam or play a bigger role than him in a Steve/Bucky fic? Do you have Pepper show up all the time (or even Happy), but Rhodey is chronically absent? Do only the white characters get to be more than the tropes youâre using, if youâre using any, while the POC donât get to be nuanced? Are there any stereotypes that youâre reducing the POC to?
I feel guilty about not including or writing about *character of colorâs name here*.
See âIt doesnât make sense to include every single POC in my work.â Include the character(s) who make sense for the story, perspective youâre writing/drawing from if applicable, and central group or ship if this is a ship-specific work. For example, if youâre drawing the Avengers and you include the newer Avengers, Rhodey and Sam should appear too, not just Wanda, Scott, Bucky, and/or Carol (this happens a lot). If youâre writing a Tony POV fic that includes other characters, depending on the story, it may make sense that Sam doesnât appear much as he and Tony arenât close whereas he would in a Steve POV fic.
How do I ensure that I donât offend anyone if I include POC in my work?
You canât ensure anything as POC arenât a monolith, but you can try to be as informed as possible and avoid common pitfalls while writing. You can do research, just the way you might research anything youâre not familiar with. You can ask if anyone is willing to do a sensitivity read while you write or before you post. You can look for betas. There are a lot of resources out there, but these are good places to start if youâre looking for more information and help:
Writing with Color - resources
Writing with Color - Stereotypes and Tropes page
Reference for Writers - POC tag
What should I do to examine myself for any implicit biases?
We should all take stock of:
our feelings about different characters and relationships, both platonic and romantic, who we prioritize in our works, and how much theyâre prioritized
our decision whether or not to seek or make content with characters of color. This includes content for white ships because sometimes every white character in the MCU shows up as a side character, but characters of color donât or all of the white characters play bigger roles than the POC despite how close they are to the protagonist(s)
the way we interpret and write/draw those characters. For example, is Sam a yes-man? A figurative or literal therapist for white friends? The bro who only cracks jokes and/or gives sage advice but seems to not have any flaws, struggles, or life of his own outside of his white friends? The BFF who thinks his white best friend is being ridiculous about another white guy and wants them to get their act together already? Does the character of color talk in the way you perceive everyone of that race to talk rather than the way they personally do (e.g., does Luis randomly and awkwardly switch into Spanish when he talks just because heâs Latinx despite never speaking Spanish with Scott? Does Sam use AAVE with Steve, Bucky, and Natasha when he doesnât do that with them?)?Â
Also, hereâs a Google doc with more anti-racist resources.
Even well-meaning people can slip up or not be as proactive as they hoped they would be so itâs just good practice to check in with ourselves every once in a while and see if thereâs anything we missed or didnât notice.
706 notes
·
View notes
Text
âA Queer Who Caresâ : The Intersection of Class and Queerness in Tokyo Godfathers
Tokyo Godfathers is a Japanese animated film, made in 2003, that follows the adventures of three homeless friends on Christmas Eve in Tokyo, Japan. Throughout the movie, we follow Hana, a transwoman and former drag queen, Gin, a middle-aged man with a gambling addiction, and Miyuki, a teenage runaway, as they find a baby in a trash can and spend Christmas Day trying to reunite the child with her mother. A comedic adventure quickly ensues, as the chaotic but loving trio, do their best to take care of their new baby, solve the mystery of her appearance, and all the while combat the dangers and prejudices that come with being homeless. Though predominantly a comedy, the film also strays away from its humorous tone and delves deep into the charactersâ complex backstories, emotionally exploring the myriad of reasons why Hana, Gin, and Miyuki are homeless and why getting the baby back to her mother is so important for each of them. Directed by the famous Satoshi Kon and loosely based on the 1913 novel âThe Three Godfathersâ, the film explores themes of parenthood, found families, classism, transphobia, and addiction, and illuminates the complex ways in which these forces interact and impact daily life. In essence, Tokyo Godfathers effectively explores themes of transphobia and the intersection of classism and queerness, and though not entirely unproblematic, is unique and powerful in its complex characterization of both Hana as a character and the oppressions she faces as a transwoman who is homeless.Â
(Hana speaking about her desire to be loved)
Before beginning, it is important to note that the following analysis is of the 2020 English dubbed re-release of Tokyo Godfathers by GKIDS. As of now, there are many fan-subbed versions of the film circulating on the internet that misgender Hana in their subtitles. The GKIDS re-release does not so I will not be addressing that form of transphobia in my analysis. Similarly, in the original Japanese version, Hana is voiced by a man, and the fluctuations of her voice, from high and feminine when she is happy, to low and masculine when she wants to be intimidating, is present and follows a very transphobic trope in comedy. In the GKIDS dubbed version, Hana is voiced by Shakina Nayfack, a transwoman, actress, and activist, and these vocal fluctuations are not present so, once again, I will not be addressing that form of transphobia, as it was not present in the updated version that I watched.
How Shakina Nayfack used her voice to reclaim trans representation in animation
(A short article on Shakina Nayfack, the English voice actress for Hana in the 2020 GKIDS re-release)
youtube
Though Tokyo Godfathers does not have the popularity or mainstream attention to be considered a breakout text, itâs humanizing and complex characterization of Hana breaks traditional transphobic tropes, particularly in comedy, that lends itself to âcreat[ing] small cracks in the glass ceiling of cultural consciousness and makes room for future breaksâ (Cavalcante, 2017, p. 4). Hana is the main protagonist of the film. She is both the center of comedic relief, the leader of her found family and the driver of the plot as a whole. It is through her desire to fulfill her dream of becoming a mother, and her desperate need to understand why parents abandon their children (as her parents did to her), that motivates her, and in turn, her friends, to find the childâs parents themselves, instead of going to the police. It is in this complexity that Hana, âbreaks historical representation paradigmsâ of both trans characters and queer characters as a whole (Cavalcante, 2017, p. 2). In her desperate search to love and be loved, Hana is immediately humanized, her identity centered in love and family, and not in her gender or sexuality, as so many queer characters are. In addition, she is not portrayed as âsexlessâ as is the norm for queer characters, wherein they can exist in media as long as their love stories and intimate desires do not. Though very subtle, Hana is the only character in the movie that has a love interest, Gin, and she had a boyfriend, who died, but is still a key part of her characterization. Though these love stories are not centered in the film, they are the only ones in the movie, and this exclusive existence, unique to Hana, illustrates their importance to both the themes of the movie and Hanaâs character.  Â
(Miyuki asks Hana about her feelings for Gin)
(A photo of Hana and her ex-boyfriend Ken at the club she once worked at)
That is not to say that the queer representation in this film is by any means perfect. As mentioned, the movie is a comedy and thus falls into the historical âpreponderance of these representations occurring in the comedyâ, especially given that Hana is the comedic center (Dow, 2001, p.130). Even more so, there are instances in which Hanaâs trans identity is stereotyped and used as the joke itself. In one scene, she flirts with a cab driver knowing that he is uncomfortable by the fact that she is a trans woman, and his transphobia is framed as comedic. She also has a very flamboyant personality, with sharp emotional highs, and equally dramatic lows, that once again plays into stereotypical representations of transwomen as over-the-top and overly dramatized to the point of ridiculousness. In line with this, her previous line of work was as a drag queen, and though scenes of her in the drag community are dominated by a sense of love and community, it still plays into already established tropes of transwoman living as a performance. In these ways, her representation at times leans towards the role of the âclown...putting on a show for The Otherâ where it is ânever quite clear whether we are laughing with or at this figureâ (Hall,1995, p. 22). However, as mentioned above, Hanaâs complex and nuanced backstory, combined with her frequent acts of heroism and her leadership role, make it so she is deeply humanized. Though her dramatic personality falls into these stereotypical tropes at times, it does not detract from her character arc of motherhood and finding love, a nuance that is missing from many stories of trans women in media. Â
(As pictured, Hanaâs emotions are very dramatized and quickly jump from very high to very low)
This nuance is heightened through the intersection of classism and queerness, which is an equally prevalent theme throughout the film. In particular, class struggles are illustrated through medical care. At one point, Hana falls ill, and Gin is forced to give away his life savings in order to pay for her treatment. It is also here where Hanaâs gender identity is questioned, as the hospital houses her in the menâs ward, and she explains that she âis not pleased with thisâ. This particular intersection of class and queerness within a medical setting is impactful given the long and âoppressive role of medicine in trans peopleâs livesâ (Keegan, 2016, p. 607) and the strong tendency of media to tell trans folks stories, about both life and transition, in a way that is medicalized. For Hana, the discrimination she experiences at the hospital, and her inability to pay for her treatment, illustrate the violence of intersecting oppressions of queerness and homelessness in medical systems, while also straying away from the problematic representation of trans folks that are centered around a rhetoric of medicalization. More visually, the family is also a key illustrative example of how class and queerness are explored. The trio is constantly visually contrasted with traditional Japanese families in a variety of settings. This harkens back to ideas of âalternative formsâ of families that queer folks create and this difference is visually exasperated by the trioâs homelessness, making them stand out in whatever space they are in (Keegan, 2016, p. 607).
(An angel asks Gin if he would rather have her magic or an ambulance. He chooses the ambulance.)
(Hana in the hospital. The subtitle reads âThis ward, itâs the menâs isn't it?â)
(One of many scenes where the trio is set up in familial positions)
As a queer, white woman living in the United States my subject positionality had a great effect on how I consumed the movie. Most notably, I was born and raised in Western society, and given that this film is Japanese and made for Japanese audiences, there is a variety of cultural norms and perceptions that I did not pick up on because of my lack of familiarity with them. In the same vein, I watched this movie translated into English and, as with every translated work, there are words and subtle, yet important, nuances in the language that were very likely lost to me as a viewer. My identity as a queer woman made it so that I was drawn to Hana as a character and was very moved by her deep desire to be a mother. The movie is steeped in images of Hana and her friends encompassing the idea of a non-traditional family, and since I would love a family of my own one day and I expect that to look different than the dominant nuclear family norm, I really focused my experience on the variety of nontraditional families that this movie shows, all of them as loving as the next.
(Hana and her drag mother reuniting)
(Hana and her family)
As a whole, Tokyo Godfathers, though not without its faults, is a refreshing take on the traditional feel-good Christmas movie trope, delving into class and queerness, and using the two to explore what it really means to be a family that is loving and kind. Spoiler alert, that family looks a little something like one ex-drag queen, one man with a gambling addiction, a teenage runaway who loves cats, and their baby they found in a dumpster. Â
Sources
Dow, Bonnie (2001). âEllen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility.â Critical Studies in Media Communication 18(2), 123-140.Â
Cavalcante, Andre (2017). âBreaking into Transgender Life: Transgender Audiencesâ Experiences With âFirst of Its Kindâ Visibility in Popular Media.â Communication, Culture & Critique, 1-18.Â
Keegan, CĂĄel (2016). âTongues without Bodies: The Wachowskisâ Sense8.â Transgender Studies Quarterly 3(3â4), 605-610.Â
Hall, Stuart (1995). âThe Whites of their Eyes: Racist Ideologies and the Media,â in Gender, Race, and Class in Media 3rd ed., pp. 18-22.Â
#tokyo godfathers#queer studies#Queer Movie Review#trans woman#trans representation#found family#christmas movies
188 notes
·
View notes
Note
Every. Single. Person. Alive. Experiences. Misogyny. Get that through your head. Every single person. Trans men, cis men, gay men, straight men. Just because theyâre men doesnât mean misogyny doesnât effect them. The patriarchy exists to enforce misogyny. This obviously means systemic oppression against women. All women. But the way that patriarchy demands that men behave and treat each other in ways that are completely void of any âfeminineâ traits (emotion, friendship, anything that can be perceived as effeminate or gay) stems from MISOGYNY.
That doesnât mean men are systemically oppressed, they still have greater social power than women, but it is an effect of misogyny and it does harm men.
Now obviously if weâre taking intersectionality into account there are men who have social power over other men. There are women who have social power over other women. And there are WOMEN who have social power over MEN. Look me in the eyes right now and tell me white women donât have social power over black men. You canât. Or youâd be denying centuries of black men killed for looking the âwrong wayâ at white women, having the cops called on them because white women weaponized their whiteness and their tears to hurt them.
Now we can talk about transness. Homophobia and transphobia both stem from misogyny. The transmisogyny that trans women face comes from the same place homophobia comes from. Because the bigots will never see you as a woman. They see you as a man in a dress. To them you are no different than a drag queen. Most of them donât even know the difference. The misogyny they are attempting to enforce against you with their hatred is that of forcing âa manâ back into masculinity because how dare you be effeminate when they canât be. How dare you be feminine happily and confidently instead of masculine and miserable like men are supposed to be. These are the kinds of people who cannot extricate their manhood from toxic masculinity. These are the kinds of people whose womanhood is still defined in relation to manhood. So trans women are now experiencing misogyny in the same way cis women do, and ALSO in the same way cis gay men do, and ALSO transphobia because people just hate us for existing and for daring not to exist within their boxes.
Trans men are in the same boat. We are experiencing 1. Transphobia for daring to exist outside of our assigned box. 2. Misogyny because the world still views us as women, 3. Misogyny and homophobia in the way lesbians experience it because they think weâre just masculine women. But weâre ALSO experiencing the loneliness and isolation that comes with manhood because misogyny has conditioned men into silent suffering and lack of camaraderie. And of course weâre looking for that in each other and in the larger queer community because thatâs what the queer community has always been for us on our gender journey but now weâre men and weâre being treated like weâre automatically the oppressor without any thought or regard for the intersections that make up our identity or the fact that we still get treated like women anyway.
Donât even get me started on the nonbinary experience of misogyny and transphobia which is either âsilly girl who doesnât know what sheâs talking about and trying to get attentionâ or âevil man trying to invade afab spacesâ.
If you canât eradicate the radfem ideology that man automatically equals evil then you canât participate in this conversation. Youâre not working toward equality with that kind of mindset. Youâre not working toward freedom of gender and expression for EVERYONE. Youâre working toward revenge. And youâre scapegoating trans men as if we havenât suffered right alongside you this entire time. And your views on sex and gender arenât only bioessentialist but incredibly colonized and white.
Everyone experiences misogyny. Even if we all experience it differently. And acting like any group is âtmeâ isnât helping anything or contributing to any sort freedom from patriarchal constraints.
transmisogyny = intersection of transphobia and misogyny.
transphobia towards trans men assuming they're women = transphobia. the misogyny is due to transphobia. it is just transphobia. you want to be oppressed so bad
This makes absolutely no sense lmao. If transphobia towards trans men is also the intersection of transphobia and misogyny than transphobia towards trans men would be transmisogyny but itâs not, because transmisogyny refers to transphobia and misogyny aimed at trans women. Hence why transphobia + misogyny towards trans men is called Transandrophobia. The misogyny isnât âdue to transphobiaâ, the misogyny is entwined with the transphobia. They are tied together.
âYou want to be oppressed so badââŠ. Anon⊠do you think transmasc people are not oppressed? Do you think trans men are not oppressed? What??????
1K notes
·
View notes