#why does your conception of intersex people not include trans women

[ciswomenofficial]

Of course there’s plenty of anti-intersex chauvinism in the trans community, but once again, many people in the intersex community are proving that they are incapable of talking about that without being extremely transmisogynistic scumbags.

[redditreceipts]

I was going to just block you, but im curious.

Why are you actually a terf? I'm genuinely wondering why.

Im sure you'll say something about biology or nature or the purity of womanhood but even so I just want to know why on earth someone can think like this.

Reply to this, don't, I don't care. Your words can't hurt me either.

hey :) So I'm a terf for the simple reason that I hate gender.

Gender is an oppressive social construct that has been designed to keep women in their place. For millenia, men have treated women like cattle in large parts of the world. You might ask yourself why these women never revolted? They make up half the population, so why did they never stand up, for thousands upon thousands of years?

It's clear that the reason is not that women like being subjugated, because there have been many matriarchal or egalitarian cultures. There has to be a social reason. So how could women in so many cultures be kept from revolting?

The reason is an ideological "superstructure". In philosophy, an ideological superstructure are the legal, religious and cultural institutions that justify material oppression. For the oppression of women, this superstructure is the concept of "gender".

The WHO defines gender as "the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy [...]." These norms and roles are constructed to justify the oppression of women to themselves and to others.

So what does that have to do with trans people?

A trans person is, according to Wikipedia, "someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." So that means that they don't identify with the gender that was imposed onto them. But now that we know that gender is an oppressive social construct, it would make sense to ask why anyone would identify with the oppressive social construct that was assigned to them. Why would any woman want to identify with the stereotypes that were constructed to subjugate her?

I think that we can go even further and say that no woman should identify with the norms and roles that were constructed to subjugate them. (Or, differently said: There should be no cis women. No women should identify with the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman)

That is why I think that the entire concept of gender identity, and the idea that you can identify with the very superstructure that was only built to oppress you, is a convenient way for patriarchy to pass on it's millenia-old oppression as "inclusive" and "woke".

Gender is not something we should identify into and out of. The entire concept of gender is already toxic. There are biological males, biological females, and intersex people. Everything else is the ideological superstructure that needs to be abolished.

I hope that answered your question :) If you have any more questions, you can feel free to ask

[the-everqueen]

Definitely curious about the genderflip Sandman fic 👀

SAME. as in, this is only a concept on the back burner of my brain because i haven't really worked out a satisfying answer to the central q of the thing which is: what does a gender flip DO to these characters?

because here's the thing. i think 99.9% of the time a genderswap au is unnecessary and boring. (not to mention essentialist as hell.) boys have pussies, girls have dicks, people of all genders are intersex, etc. some of us notgirls and failguys just want to vicariously experience our fave getting his clit sucked or her prostate massaged. i personally hate fics that go "but what if these [cis] dudes were [cis] GIRLS" and then proceed to strip the characters of everything that makes them compelling, that makes THEM, because at that point you might as well just flesh out your OCs and maybe interrogate your internalized misogyny and transphobia while you're at it.

anyways.

in the case of sandman, i am (transparently, obviously) curious about what happens if the Corinthian is not designed to be (read as) a man. in the comix, he very much embodies the fears and risks associated with gayness in the 90s (the AIDS epidemic, the dual violence of the closet and/or being outed, the culture around cruising, intersections of race and class with queerness in U.S. urban areas, etc). in the show that's subtly shifted to be a broader umbrella of queerness as well as a very 21st century anxiety around surveillance/public vs private that also taps into a cultural fascination with serial killers. in both cases, him reading as white, middle-aged U.S. man is a CRUCIAL part of what he signifies. he looks like (and takes advantage of being) someone with a lot of social privilege, across multiple categories. no one is going to question why he's in a fancy hotel, a conference room, a seedy bar, a suburb. OBVIOUSLY that changes if any one of these categories changes. i'm thinking about how and also what that means.

(the dreaming spinoff comix tried to do a Thing with a female Corinthian: while Coco spends a year as a real boy, a trans woman named Echo takes his place in the Dreaming. the spinoff handles Echo...really poorly. [i wrote a whole paragraph here trying to distill her arc but it's tangential to this post so suffice to say: it was Bad.] Echo is posed as this "femme fatale" type because i guess if the Corinthian is a woman, she'd also have to be sexy and alluring to the (heterosexist) male gaze. imho this was a cop-out, but then again...what about that spinoff wasn't.)

on some level i'm not sure the Corinthian could ever be anything besides the Corinthian, if that makes sense. as in, if you change anything about him, maybe then he ceases to be the Corinthian and becomes something else entirely. Dream can take different forms (and Overture has a femme!Dream) because stories can take different forms across cultures and times and species. but the Corinthian is intrinsically tied up in humanity and its biomythic nature. and what we think of as Human, as Sylvia Wynter reminds us, is very much tied up in narratives around identity including race, gender, and class.

at the same time my id absolutely wants a butch lesbian Corinthian who uses he/him pronouns. mostly because lesbian and wlw sex STILL gets dismissed or sanitized or erased or pathologized, even though queer women remain subject to state, police, and domestic violence at higher rates than their straight and/or cis counterparts. (also yes i'm counting my trans hermanas y primas, t*rfs can fuck right off.) but also because i'm a fagdyke with religious trauma who relates very hard to god's failed masterpiece.

[ray-moo]

Replying to TERFs about Gender

I originally wrote this as a reply to a TERF but my queer friends will never see it because it's attached to TERF tags so im reposting it a little edited to be less contextual to the conversation here. Anyways you can find the original convo here https://www.tumblr.com/ray-moo/731679366383337472/you-brought-up-one-last-defense-of-why-trans-women?source=share The scientific definition of 'woman' as 'an adult human of the female sex' is shaky in and of itself because so many of the concepts necessary for defining it that way are arbitrary.First of all, adult is a term that varies in meaning by culture. In other words, it is socially defined. In some cultures, you’re not considered an adult until you reach a certain age. In others, there is a ritual which brings you into adult. In some cultures, that ritual is marriage or sex. Many radical feminists would staunchly oppose such definitions of adult as sexist and wrong, rightly so I believe. But how can the definition of a woman as an ‘adult female’ be as simple as you claim if no one can agree what ‘adult’ means?

Second of all, female is also a term that differs in definition, especially in modern times. Many, many TERFs like to define female through biology, specifically citing the existence of two x chromosomes. They will claim that this definition has always been the case until the birth of gender movements and so on and so fourth, but that ignores the fact that the x chromosome was only discovered in 1890. That is 11 millennia of human history where the definition of woman, universally, across all cultures, and without exception, was defined with no regard to whether the individual had an x or y chromosome. Defining woman through biology the way some insist on doing in the present day has only been possible for 133 years.

The problem with citing historical precedent as evidence for the objective, biology-based definition of femininity is that you can't have both a traditional and biology-based definition of femininity. You have to pick one or the other. Either you support female only as being defined by tradition, or defined by biology. Either you abandon the weight of tradition or the backing of biology. You can’t have both.

There are problems with using both a tradition and biology-based definition of womanhood as well. For the biological definition, the simple problem is that edge cases exist. Is an intersex person a woman or a man? How about someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? Which washroom should they use? You could argue that these are edge cases which don't have any bearing on the daily lives of most people. But by it's very definition, a scientific definition ought to cover all cases, no? What would it say about radical feminism, a movement which seeks the liberation of all women, to operate on a definition of womanhood which does not necessarily include all women?

There is also the arbitrary nature of the biological definition of 'two x chromosomes' being the operational definition of womanhood. Why is it the x chromosome that determines womanhood and not the y chromosome? Is femininity (defined for this conversation as the traits of being female) contained in the x chromosome? Why not, instead of requiring that a woman have two x chromosomes, specify that a woman be someone who does not have a y chromosome? It would be just as effective as differentiating what TERFs would consider female and male in the mainstream population. But to define male and female by the ease of how the mainstream population is split up would be to admit your definition is not founded on scientific principles. In which case, to maintain an appeal to biology, you would have to argue, scientifically, that femininity is either emergent from two x chromosomes, or that masculinity is inherent to the y chromosome. In either case, people with Turner Syndrome would be genderless under this scientific definition so there wouldn't only be two genders.

Of course, this is all assuming that you are arguing from a scientific definition of femininity and I shouldn't really put words in people's mouth. 1/4

EDIT: Fuck you Tumblr Here's the link to the full blogpost since it isn't showing up in the tags https://www.tumblr.com/ray-moo/731826525504159744/one-last-defense-of-why-trans-women-are-not?source=share

[uncloseted]

Hi Christina!! I know of conservative and democrat but I don’t know where my own political beliefs lay. I’m a mix of both red and blue pill. I believe in gun bans, free world class health care (im from Australia so I’ve always had that and feel so sorry for u guys that u don’t have it), I believe in welfare and upping the welfare so people can actually live of it, upping the minimum wage, helping students and those less fortunate. But I also believe in only two genders, not confusing children about genders in school, and I think people shouldn’t be allowed to transition to another gender as I believe they are severely mentally ill, and no happy person would ever want to change sex. I’m not religious btw. Idk what to call myself politically

In the US we would generally call that a moderate or someone who is center-left? You might also describe it as being socially conservative but economically liberal.

But (and my apologies for hijacking this ask, but if you've been around here for any amount of time, you knew this was coming) I want to talk a little bit about your position on the trans community. Why does maintaining a binary set of genders matter so much to you that it excludes trans people from your goal of "helping the less fortunate"? What are you afraid will happen if trans people are allowed to live the lives that are authentic to them? How are you imagining that will impact your life, and why are you so scared of that impact that you feel like it needs to be banned entirely?

Trans people aren't "severely mentally ill". They're just people who don't relate to the biopsychosocial gender role that they were assigned at birth. Trans, gender non-conforming, and intersex people have always existed. Many cultures have historically recognized more than two genders. Even within Western culture, we recognize lots of different gender expressions amongst cis people- girls can be tomboys or girly girls, women can be femme or butch, people can be androgynous... for a while, "metrosexual" was even a term for men who put effort into their appearance. All of those concepts are just gender expressions. The line at which they go from being "cis" to "trans" really just depends on culture and the person's perception of their own experience.

While there isn't a lot of research on why some people are trans and some aren't, but the research we do have seems to suggest that trans people are just born that way. It seems that being trans is, in part, genetic, and that trans people's brain structures are (on average) more similar to the brain structures of other people of the gender they identify as, rather than the gender they were assigned at birth. Being trans is not a "severe mental illness". It's just a different way of existing in the world. But even if it were a "severe mental illness" (which, again, it is not), don't mentally ill people have the right to seek treatment that will alleviate their suffering? Because that's what transitioning does. It alleviates suffering and discomfort associated with conforming to gender roles that don't align with a person's gender identity. You're right that very few people who are happy would undergo a medical transition to change their body. But the root of that unhappiness isn't mental illness. The root of that unhappiness is feeling like you don't belong in the body you have or the gender role that you've been given. And so transitioning alleviates that unhappiness.

And there's scientific data to back this idea up. Per the American Psychiatric Association, transgender individuals who transition experience long-term mental health benefits, including reduced anxiety, depression, and suicidality. And, per the Stanford University School of Medicine, trans people who start their transition as teenagers have better mental health than those who start their transition as adults. If you want trans people to "recover" from the "severe mental illness" you perceive them as having... transitioning is the way to let them do that.

But even if you don't care at all about trans people's health and wellbeing (and let's be real, I'm not convinced that you do), why should that mean that transitioning "shouldn't be allowed"? We let adults make all sorts of decisions about their bodies that they may regret down the line. For example, cis women are allowed to get boob jobs- gender affirming care within itself- regardless of whether or not they might regret it in the future. Cis women are allowed to take hormones in order to alter their menstrual cycle - often starting when they're in their teens- and we accept that they understand the long-term risks and benefits to their health that come with that choice. Why should trans people's choices about their bodies be any different? They're making informed decisions about the medical care they (and their doctors!) think will benefit them. Who are you to take that decision away from them?

There's a lot more I can say here and a lot of studies I can cite. I can tell you that every major U.S. medical and mental health organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, plus global health organizations including the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the World Medical Association, and the World Health organization support access to age-appropriate, individualized medical transition for transgender youth and adults. The Australian Psychological Society is also included in that group, in case you were curious. I can tell you that the evaluations that trans people undergo in order to receive gender affirming care are extensive, even moreso for trans children. I can walk you through the reasoning behind introducing discussions of gender into classrooms early, and explain that children often have an understanding of gender by the age of three. I can talk about how the points people bring up when talking about trans people are the same ones they used about gay people fifteen years ago, and the world didn't end when countries started legalizing gay marriage. But I don't know if any of that will make a difference, because the reaction people have to trans people isn't really based in fact (no matter how much people will try to insist that it is). It's based in emotion.

So instead, I want to wrap up by asking this. How do you know that you are the gender you are? What makes you feel like a man or a woman? Are those things innate, are they cultural, are they both? How would you feel if one day, everyone started calling you a name of the opposite gender (for example, Michael instead of Michelle or vice versa) and insisting that you adopt the social roles of the opposite gender? What if you were forced into activities that you don't enjoy, with people who aren't like you? That would suck, right? You'd probably want to do whatever you could to be seen the way you feel on the inside, right? That's all trans people really want- to be seen for who they are. You can think that they're mentally ill or cringe if you want (although I really hope you won't), but don't legislate away their ability to pursue their happiness, even if you don't get why they would want that.

If you're interested in learning about trans issues more in-depth, I highly recommend ContraPoints' channel. She does a really good job of discussing transphobia and gender critical ideas while still being incredibly entertaining and fun.

[villains4hire]

🔥 Why do you dislike futa? I just want to know

//Hm, I'll accept this just to explain it, as well I am glad I give that impression with my header, but I dislike slurs in general in the open rpc other than specifically. And while I rank that as a slur that by itself isn't really super bad unless you call a trans woman that or something? It's just an annoyance really by itself that it means 'hermaphrodite' but any of the subjects have like a 50/50 of being trans coded with no signs of a 'vagina' or something and it's just trans woman no-op stuff. It's NOT enough for me to crucify someone for, but I do tell people that approach me that are into it openly to not interact with me as I do have around 725-730ish followers rn so I get a bit of traffic, but I don't helicopter my friends etc who interact with ppl like that.

//I don't represent everyone as I'm more lax these days about it, but I will say that there are a lot of trans women who hate the term just in general online, but there's a good smaller chunk who don't. I'm somewhere inbetween where I'm a teensy bit spiteful I'll admit but I'm polite about it, I won't hate you or anything, as it's more or less on the inconsistency of it and it's not a super big deal to me. Now I'm guessing you might like it or do it yourself and you're afraid to approach, my suggestion if you do this to your cis women and just give them a cock or something and nothing else: you can be a cis woman, and want a cock. It's called being 'gender-nonconforming', that's fine, this applies to men as well. You're not trans or a hermaphrodite (actual hermaphrodites do not exist within medical science and are not to be confused with intersex people) if you identify with your assigned gender at birth still, you're still a cis woman if you're born a cis woman and choose to keep that identity. This includes genitals that have both AMAB and AFAB physical sex combined for what hermaphrodite actually means or 'futa'. I am completely FINE with people wanting to change their genitals and being gender-nonconforming or just say girl cock/gock or something, I dunno, there are a lot of the problems in the world. I don't get hung up on stuff like this anymore. And it will probably be a thing once the medical technology is pretty seamless for the process, but I will say that trans people or anyone does not own 'gender-nonconforming' as a concept.

//I would have no problems with the term if people didn't lump trans-coded characters into the mix or just started adopting GNC as a term. Are there flaws to what I've said, eh, kinda in some ways as I can explain the nuance but this has gone on long enough. As I have been asked in the past and even to now if my characters are 'futa'. Even last month I was asked that by someone I told politely what they were and that I don't want to interact lol.

[disquiet-dream]

Every time people start arguing again about the terms tma/tme I'm always - well first of all I'm annoyed, because I'm someone who was originally against the terms and have since come around, so like I get it but I can't help but cringe a bit, but I'm also always like… How do I put this…

It's strange to me that the portion of transfem tumblr who are heavily invested in this terminology the the portion who get really really mad at people identifying as femboys is like, pretty heavily overlapping?

Because like, I see people complain about tma/tme by talking about the literal meanings of the terms, i.e. The whole "well, everyone is affected by transmisogyny" argument, and I do get where that comes from, I just don't… Care.

Because no terminology is perfect y'know? I see it basically the same way I see "PoC", it's far from perfect, but it does articulate something meaningful - there are people who are the primary targets of a form of bigotry and people who are incidental targets. Like, an italian-american might get some racism thrown at them - and that does genuinely suck! I'm not discounting that! - but they don't suffer the same structural issues that impact your entire life, so there is a difference here.

(I also like PoC as a comparison point just because like. One of the issues there is also the literal meaning being kinda off - I used an Italian as the example there because a lot of Italians do have skin as dark as a lot of PoC groups, and there are of course "PoC" groups that aren't literally "People of Color", in the sense that they don't actually have dark skin, but they're obviously included.)

(That's not the biggest issue mind - the bigger one is that the whole framework doesn't really work in much of the world (on some level literally just ''outside the US", even), and trying to apply it there immediately causes issues - but it is an issue!)

But anyway, to wrap back around to my original point: while I do think the terminology is useful, I do agree with one point I've seen that's like, "if tma just means transfem why don't you just say transfem?"

Because like… I mean honestly yeah, I don't get the point either then lol. Like, the whole reason I like the term is because it implicitly acknowledges that there are people who are affected directly by transmisogny - and who's interests are aligned with those of trans women because of that, whether they recognize it or not - but don't neatly fit into "trans woman" or even "transfem".

Like, large amounts of amab nonbinary people (i'd argue most if not all tbh), quite a few intersex people, drag queens (''drag bans'' might be intended to attack trans women, but they choose to do it through queens for a reason!), and - the reason for this post - a whole lot of self-identified femboys!

These are all categories that to me are like, yeah of course those are tma. Like, they're not the same as transfems (although there's of course an overlap) nor are they treated identically, but they're subject to the same broad societal hatred in a structural way.

(With that said, I do think the like, image I have of ''femboy'' as a concept isn't the same as people who get mad about it. Although I of course think mine is the more accurate one.

Because I tend to think of what I guess i'd call "lifestyle femboys", which is to say people who present femme as often as is safe (and sometimes even when not), consider being feminine a core part of their identity, may even be on or wish to be on HRT, etc.

Basically, people who in terms of action are clearly on the same wavelength as most transfems, even if they're using different terminology, to the point where imo it's obviously ridiculous to act like they aren't subject to the same forces, even before you get into the ones who y'know, do just identify as both transfem/trans woman and femboy.)

(I'd argue the kind of femboy I'm implicitly contrasting against, who only does it privately and like, as a hobby rather than a lifestyle, is also often affected - if nothing else there's probably a reason it's by default a private thing, eh? Probably the same reason a lot of transfems only present femme in private… - but I at least consider that more ambigious.)

So y'know, if only there were a word for that hatred. And perhaps some sort of supercategory we could use to include everyone affected by this phenomenon. Who can say…

[baeddel]

Please. Please can you tell me what a baeddel is and why people (terfs?) used it in a derogatory manner on this website for a hot minute but now no one ever uses it at all

you asked for it, fucker

[2k words; philology and drama]

baeddel is an Old English word. i have no idea where it actually occurs in the Old English written corpus, but it occurs in a few placenames. its diminuitive form, baedling, is much better documented. it appears in the (untranslated) Canons of Theodore, a penitential handbook, a sort of guidebook for priests offering advice on what penances should be recommended for which sins. in a passage devoted to sexual transgressions it gives the penances suggested for a man who sleeps with a woman, a man who sleeps with another man, and then a man who sleeps with a baedling. so you have this construction of a baedling as something other than a man or a woman. and then it gives the penance for a baedling who sleeps with another baedling (a ludicrous one-year fast). then, by way of an explaination, Theodore delivers us one of the most enigmatic phrases in the Old English corpus: "for she is soft, like an adulturess."

the -ling suffix in baedling is masculine. but Theodore uses feminine pronouns and suffixes to describe baedlings. as we said, it's also used separately from male and female. but it's also used separately from their words for intersex and it never appears in this context. all of this means that you have this word that denotes a subject who is, as Christopher Monk put it, "of problematic gender." interested historians have typically interpreted it as referring to some category of homosexual male, such as Wayne R. Dines in his two-volume Encyclopedia of Homosexuality who discusses it in the context of an Old English glossary which works a bit like an Old English-Latin dictionary, giving Old English words and their Latin counterparts. the Latin words the Anglo-Saxon lexicographer chose to correspond with baedling were effeminatus and mollis, and Lang concludes that it refers to an "effeminate homosexual" (pg 60, Anglo Saxon). this same glossary gives as an Old English synonym the word waepenwifstere which literally means "woman with a penis," and which Dines gives the approximate translation (hold on tight) male wife.

R. D. Fulk, a philologist and medievalist, made a separate analysis of the term in his study on the Canons of Theodore 'Male Homoeroticism in the Old English Canons of Theodore', collected in Sex and Sexuality in Medieval England, 2004. he analysed it as a 'sexual category' (sexual as in sexuality), owing to the context of sexual transgressions in the Canons. he decides that it refers to a man who bottoms in sexual relationships with another man. i don't have the article on hand so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but this seems obviously inadequate given what we know from the glossary described by Dines. Latin has a word for bottom, pathica, and the lexicographer did not use this in their translation, preferring words that emphasized the baedling's femininity like effeminatus, and doesn't address the sexual context at all. Dines, however, only reading this glossary, seems to decide that it refers to a type of male homosexual too hastily, considering the Canons explicitly treat them separately. both Dines and Fulk immediately reduce the baedling to a subcategory of homosexual when neither of the sources to hand actually do so themselves.

by now it should be obvious why, seven or so years ago, we interpreted it as an equivalent to trans woman. I mean come on - a woman with a penis! these days I tend to add a bit of a caution to this understanding, which is that trans woman is the translation of baedling which seems most adequate to us, just as baedling was the translation of effeminatus that seemed most adequate to our lexicographer. but the term cannot translate perfectly; its sense was derived from some minimal context; a legal context, a doctrinal context, and so forth... the way Anglo-Saxons understood sex/gender is complicated but it has been argued that they had a 'one sex model' and didn't regard men and women as biologically separate types, which is obviously quite different from the sexual model accepted today; in any case they didn't have access to the karyotype and so on. the basic categories they used to understand gender and sexuality were different from ours. in particular, Hirschfield et al. should be understood as a particularly revolutionary moment in the genealogy of transsexuality; the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft essentially invented the concept of the 'sex change', the 'transition', conceived as a biological passage from one sex to the other. even in other contexts where (forgive me) #girlslikeus changed their bodies in some way, like the castration of the priestesses of Cybele, or those belonging to the various historical societies which we believe used premarin for feminization [disputed; see this post], there is no record that they were ever considered men at any stage or had some kind of male biology that preceded their 'gender identity.' the concept of the trans woman requires the minimal context of the coercive assignment at birth and its subsequent (civil and bio-technological) rejection. i have never encountered evidence that this has ever been true in any previous society. nonetheless, these societies still had gendered relations, and essentially wherever we find these gendered relations we also find some subject which is omitted or for whom it has been necessary to note exceptions. what is of chief interest to us is not so much that there was such a subject here or there in history (and whatever propagandistic uses this fact might have), but understanding why these regularities exist.

a very parsimonious explanation is that gender is a biological reality, and there is some particular biological subject which a whole host of words have been conjured to denote. if this were the case then we would expect that, no matter what gender/sexual system we encounter in a given society, it will inevitably find some linguistic expression. if, like me, you find this idea revolting, then you should busy yourself trying to come up with an alternative explanation which is not just plausible, but more plausible. my best guesses are outside the scope of this answer...

anyway, all of this must be very interesting to the five or six people invested in the confluence of philology and gender studies. but why on earth did it become so widely used, in so many strange and unusual contexts, in the 2010s? we're very sorry, but yes, it's our fault. you see apart from all of this, there is also a little piece of information which goes along with the word baeddel, which is that it's the root of the Modern English word bad. by way of, no less, the word baedan, 'to defile'. how this defiled historical subject came to bear responsibility for everything bad to English-speakers doesn't seem to be known from linguistic evidence. however, it makes for a very pithy little remark on transmisogyny. my dear friend [REDACTED] made a playful little post making this point and, good Lord, had we only known...

it went like this. its such a funny little idea that we all start changing our urls to include the word baeddel. in those days it was common to make puns with your url (we always did halloween and christmas ones); i was baeddelaire, a play on the French poet Baudelaire. while we all still had these urls a series of events which everyone would like to forget happened, and we became Enemies of Everyone in the Whole World. because of the url thing people started to call us "the baeddels." then there was "a cult" called "the baeddels" and so forth. this cult had various infamies attatched to it and a constellation of indefensible political positions. ultimately we faced a metric fucking shit ton of harassment, including, for some of my friends, really serious and bad irl harassment that had long-term bad awful consequences relating to stable housing and physical safety and i basically never want to talk about that part of my life ever again. and i never have to, because i've come to realize that for most people, when they use the word baeddel, they don't know about that stuff. it doesn't mean that anymore.

so what does it mean? you'll see it in a few contexts. TERFs do use it, as you guessed. i am not quite sure what they really mean by it and how it differs from other TERF barbs. i think being a baeddel invovles being politically active or at least having a political consciousness, but in a way thats distinct from just any 'TRA' or trans activist. so perhaps 'militant' trans women, but perhaps also just any trans woman with any opinions at all. how this was transmitted from tumblr/west coast tranny drama to TERF vocabulary i have no idea. but you will also find - or, could have found a few years ago - i would say 'copycat' groups who didn't know us or what we believed but heard the rumours, and established their own (generously) organizations (usually facebook groups) dedicated to putting those principles into practice. they considered themselves trans lesbian separatists and did things like doxx and harass trans women who dated cafabs. if you don't know about this, yes, there really were such groups. they mostly collapsed and disappeared because they were evildoers who based their ideology on a caricature. i knew a black trans woman who was treated very badly by one of these groups, for predictable reasons. so long-time readers: if you see people talking about their bad experiences with 'baeddels', you can't necessarily relate it to the 2014 context and assume they're carrying around old baggage. there are other dreams in the nightmare.

the most common way you'll see it today, in my experience, is in this form: people will say that it was a "slur" for trans women. they might bring up that it's the root of the word bad, and they might even think that you shouldn't use the word bad because of it, or that you shouldn't use the word baeddel because it's a slur. all of this is a silly game of internet telephone and not worth addressing. except to say that it's by no means clear that baeddel, or baedling, were slurs, or even insulting at all. while Theodore doesn't provide us with a description of how we can have sex with a baedling without sinning, and it may be the case that any sexual relations with a baedling was considered sinful, sexuality-based transgressions were not taken all that seriously in those days. there was a period where homosexuality within the Church was almost sanctioned, and it wasn't until much later that homosexuality became so harshly proscribed, to the extent that it was thought to represent a threat to society, etc. and as i mentioned, there are places in England named after baedlings. there is a little parish near Kent which is called Badlesmere, Baeddel's Lake, which was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book (as having a lord, a handful of villagers and a few slaves; perhaps only one or two households). it's not unheard of, but i just don't know very many places called Faggot Town or some such. it's possible that baedlings had some role in Anglo-Saxon society which we are not aware of; it could even have been a prestigious one, as it was in other societies. there is just no evidence other than a couple of passing references in the literature and we'll probably never have a complete picture.

[teaboot]

Do you not believe in biological sex? I’m confused.

Hoo, boy. Apologies in advance, but this is gonna have a long answer.

The thing about "biological sex" is, it's a complicated science with a lot of nuance involved, and people who don't actually know anything about it love to use it to mean "penis is boy, vagina is girl".

Which, on the surface, makes sense to a lot of people. Its what we're taught our whole lives, and it's difficult to listen to any argument that contradicts our worldview. It's scary and confusing, and people automatically resist scary and confusing things.

The thing you need to know, though, is that what we call "Biological Sex" can actually depend on a range of factors: 

First off, primary sex characteristics: the bits directly involved in reproduction, what most people consider the defining indicator of gender.

Primary sex characteristics include the penis and testes, which are predominantly associated with men, and the vagina and uterus, associated with women.

This seems fairly simple on the surface, scientifically speaking, but bodies aren't that simple. People can and are born with combinations of these things and live long, happy, healthy lives with few or no medical complaints. Many don't even know they have undescended testes or ovaries at all, and only find out accidentally through unrelated procedures. Is a mother of three who's known herself to be a woman her whole life suddenly a man because she has 'male' sex characteristics? No? Then why should any other woman?

Someone who is still new to this might be experiencing a cognitive dissonance right now, trying to reconcile "penis is boy, vagina is girl" with "people can have both (or neither)", and they may try to do this by saying, "Well, this could be caused by mutations or deformities, so intersex people (people with mixed characteristics) are outliers, not to be included with "valid" genders."

Which brings us to the next factor: hormones.

Testosterone is Boy, Estrogen is Girl. That's what people know, so they don't want to accept any different. Different is confusing, confusing is scary, scary is bad.

But, like primary sex characteristics, these things can fly in the face of common understanding.

A woman, for example, who considers herself cisgender, who has breasts and a vagina and a uterus and all that, might have high testosterone. Because people have both! And because testosterone can give people body hair, among other things, this woman has chest hair and a beard. She LOOKS a lot like what we think of as "male", so do we tell her she's wrong about her gender? 

On the flip side, plenty of cis men with a penis and testes can have high estrogen for any number of reasons, and can develop breasts- does that mean they're women, now? 

Of course not. We have to listen to them to tell us what their pronouns are, what their gender is, and how is that any different from someone who's trans? It would be incredibly ride to tell anyone that "oh, you SAY you're a man, but you look like a woman to me, so I'm going to ignore everything you tell me and call you a woman until you can prove to my satisfaction otherwise."

So if primary sex characteristics aren't the final word on gender, and secondary characteristics aren't either, then what's left? DNA, right? Genetics don't lie, everyone knows that.

So, chromosomes, then. The barest evidence of human biological sex. XX means "female", XY means "male", forget all that mess about vaginas, breasts, and testes. Our chromosomes are the holy gospel of gender.

Except, again, nature isn't that simple.

Picture in your head a cisgender woman. She hits everything on our personal little checklist: breasts, vagina, uterus, minimal body hair, small jawline, high voice, everything. But she has XY chromosomes. 

Because, surprise! That happens! And it happens more often than you think! People can and do go their entire lives not knowing it! Because it isn't important to how we view our gender. We don't care. 

If you went to a lab today, got tested, and found that you had the "wrong" chromosomes- would you suddenly be fine with Becoming A Different Gender? Being treated like you're a different gender? Having to dress different, talk different, redefine your sexuality, because your DNA says you're wrong about your identity? How would that feel? Probably pretty shitty, huh? 

So, when we get down to it, what is the one true indicator of gender? We can't trust genitalia, because it presents on any number of variations and combinations. Secondary sex characteristics are out too, because hormones do whatever they want without rhyme or reason. Chromosomes do whatever the hell they want, fuck them, they're useless.

If we are to open our minds to what the science is telling us, then, what is it saying?

If we are to put our faith in "Biological Sex", then what does is dictate to be the truth?

That physical sex isn't just "boy or girl", it exists on a spectrum. It's not "pink or blue", it's magenta, mauve, violet, lilac, periwinkle, cyan, cobalt, or vermilion, and our idea of "boy or girl" is almost entirely a construct of our imaginations, of the society we live in. It's an illusion that dictates how we experience our lives, how we're treated, what makes us happy and comfortable or how we feel at ease.

Biological sex cannot dictate gender because they're different concepts with different rules grounded in separate realities, and no amount of pointless fussing can force them to cooperate. 

Sex is one spectrum, gender is another, and they don't know each other.

You can accept what the science says, or you can find excuses to justify the beliefs you're comfortable with. It really doesn't matter. 

Just don't be a dick about things that make you uncomfortable and the world will keep on spinning.

[dakotafinely]

So, even in your own definition of Women and Men. Some women and men can be outliers of that exact definition. Due to something genetic that causes chimerism. Which, if I'm understanding my best here, is also just another form of Intersex? Which if we're only including chimerism it doesn't rigidly define intersex people into specifically Women or Men. Since there are several different types of intersex outside of just chimerism that deals with Chromosomes. Such as, Gonadal dysgenesis: Gonadal dysgenesis causes variations in the development of the testes and ovaries before birth. People with complete gonadal dysgenesis don’t have developed testicles or ovaries, which can affect or prevent puberty. People with partial gonadal dysgenesis have chromosomal changes that often lead to internal and external sex differences.

If you can agree that anyone can express themselves in any way they want. Why does it matter so much what makes the concepts of Man and Woman? Or who chooses to label themselves such things? If a Trans Man labels himself a Man, why does it matter? Or a Trans Woman? If it is just about the expression and not about the biological parts of a person, why does it matter if someone wants to be perceived as a Man or Woman by society?

"Yes, I know advanced biology and no, it's not on your side."

okay. please point me to some peer reviewed scientific papers that disprove the existence of transgender people then. i'm new to your blog, so if youve very kindly done so in the past, feel free to simply link your posts.

thanks.

That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Trans people exist, they just follow an ideology analogous to a soul (that there's some inherent "gender" disconnected from one's biology). Likewise, I can't disprove God or souls. How about you get off anon and find me a paper that proves your belief?

[xclusivetism]

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science  argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix 

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator 

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot. 

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender 

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow. 

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth. 

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness. 

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓ 

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy. 

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression. 

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough. 

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others. 

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria 

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing. 

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet. 

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them. 

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

[vampish-glamour]

Hiya! I'm new to your wonderful corner of the internet, and I hope you don't mind if I ask a lot of questions lol. Firstly, what do you think of pan vs bi? The only satisfying answer I have gotten as to the differences (besides subjective stuff like feeeeeeling like you value their gender or whatever) is that a pan person would f*ck intersex/enbies, while bi people wouldn't. I'm curious what you think. Second, do you think that the LGBs are ever going to have a satisfying split from the Ts/the gender fandom? What kind of steps would we take to accomplish that?

Hi, and welcome! I don’t mind questions at all. 😄

I’m strongly against the concept of pansexuality.

I believe that the label is rooted in biphobia and a misunderstanding of bisexuals.

The main arguments for the difference between bi and pan (off the top of my head) are as followed;

Bi means two, pan means all. Bisexuals are only attracted to two genders but pansexuals are attracted to all.

Bisexuals take gender into consideration when it comes to attraction. Pansexuals don’t.

Bisexuals care about parts, pansexuals care more about somebody’s personality. (“Hearts not parts”)

Bisexuals won’t date trans people, pansexuals will.

These are all either based on a misunderstanding of sexuality, or of bisexuals.

For the first one, I do agree that bi means two. But it means the two sexes, because sexuality is based off of sex (hence it being called SEXuality).

In the same way homosexual means same sex attracted, heterosexual means opposite sex attracted, and asexual means attracted to neither sex... bisexual means attracted to two/both sexes. And since there’s only two sexes, “pansexual” meaning “attracted to all sexes” is functionally the exact same thing as bisexuality.

Even if you believe in more than two genders (which I don’t), the attraction is still based off of sex characteristics... and on a biological level, there would be no difference in how a pansexual experiences attraction and how a bisexual experiences attraction.

For the second one, there are many bisexuals who don’t care about gender. There are many who have a preference. To say that all bisexuals have a preference is a misunderstanding of bisexuality. And, to say that preferences dictate sexuality is a misunderstanding of sexuality. Preferences or no preferences—it doesn’t change what sex(es) you are attracted to. If you are attracted to both sexes, you are bisexual. Your preferences or lack thereof don’t make or take away from your bisexuality.

For the third one, I just find this argument disgustingly biphobic, and in general an arrogant thing to say—that only one sexuality, pansexuality, cares about one’s personality over their body. Especially when the idea that bisexuals and homosexuals are obsessed with sex is a stereotype that has been fought against for years.

And once again, it’s a misunderstanding of sexuality. A straight woman who is more interested in sex than a guy’s personality isn’t suddenly a different sexuality. So why is this the case for bisexuals?

I believe it’s to escape the negative stereotypes that cloud over bisexuality. The idea that bisexuals are sex crazed and greedy, and only care about genitalia. It’s not a coincidence that pansexuality makes its entire brand off of distancing itself from these negative stereotypes.

It would be like if a bunch of homosexual women started calling themselves “samesexual”, and claimed that they’re different than homosexual women/lesbians because unlike lesbians, samesexuals aren’t predatory.

That sounds insanely homophobic, yes? If we can accept that creating a whole new “sexuality” to distance oneself from negative homosexual stereotypes is homophobic, we have to accept that creating a whole new “sexuality” to distance oneself from negative bisexual stereotypes is biphobic.

And the fourth argument, there’s not much to say here other than that this is plain transphobia. It separates trans people from cis people, placing trans men and women into a separate box away from “man” and “woman”

On top of this, being attracted to or not being attracted to trans people does not make a whole new sexuality, because trans people are not a third sex.

It’s also another misconception about bisexuality—because never have transsexuals not been in the bisexual dating pool.

Onto the next topic;

I don’t support “drop the T”.

This isn’t to say that I don’t think separating LGB and T for certain causes is helpful. For example; fighting for same sex marriage is an LGB issue, while fighting for accessible and affordable medical care for gender dysphoria is a T issue.

To be fair, I’m almost of the opinion that the large grouping itself isn’t really necessary, considering how different the experiences of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals are. But, I can understand why they’re all lumped together for a rights movement, especially because homophobia impacts everyone in the LGBT acronym. So since it’s here and it’s been here for a while, I’m in support of the full acronym being LGBT.

But as far as completely dropping the T goes... I believe that the push for this comes from a misunderstanding of transgender people, likely from the terrible representation they are given from people who aren’t actually transsexual.

Because the Ts and the gender fandom are two incredibly different groups, and although the distinction isn’t made often... it’s incredibly important for exactly this reason—that they get mixed together and it leads to hatred of trans people.

Transgender people/transsexuals are people who experience gender dysphoria. The goal of most trans people is to live a normal life as the gender their brain recognizes them to be. They have medical and mental health needs that are important to their quality of life. This is the crowd where you’re likely to find people who simply want to live their lives in peace.

The gender fandom, at least who I think you’re referring to, are people who don’t experience gender dysphoria, and often treat gender as an accessory, a performance, a fashion or political statement, etc. This is the crowd where you’ll find the neopronoun users, the obscure labels like “genderfluid”, and are unfortunately typically the people who get the spotlight over actual trans people.

Please do not confuse the two!

Look, I get it. Watching the second group run around and make LGBT people look like a joke is painful. But it is not the fault of transsexuals. Many trans people are just as annoyed as everyone else is, especially because they are directly being misrepresented (shown by how you and many others consider them to be one and the same with things like MOGAI).

So I won’t be advocating for dropping the T.

However, I do fully support from separating from MOGAI (or the “queer community” as many of them like to say), and I think the way to do that is to make a clear distinction between LGBT people, and QIA+ people. And making it clear that the T only includes dysphoric trans men/women.

It’s not about dropping the T. It’s about dropping everything after the T, and restoring the T to its original meaning.

We need more LGBT people to stand up against how the “queer community” is representing us, and to make it clear that the acronym is LGBT, and that the LGBT movement is a civil rights movement, not a “let’s all party and share our pronouns” movement.

Thanks to the “queer community”, LGBT people aren’t taken seriously. Thanks to the “gender fandom”, transsexuals are seen as a joke and a burden to the LGBT community. Both the “queer community” and “gender fandom” need to be separated and made distinct from the LGBT community, and this should be done with all four letters, not just three.

Tl;dr:

I’m against the pansexual label, and I believe it is inherently biphobic and often transphobic.

It also perpetuates harmful stereotypes about bisexuals and homosexuals.

I don’t support the “drop the T” movement.

The T gets a lot of misrepresentation, and I believe that misrepresentation is part of where the “drop the T” movement comes from.

It’s important to make a distinction between the LGBT movement and the modern day “queer community” if we ever want LGBT people to be taken seriously again.

[andyinmiddleearth]

Not to be cisphobic but like... you know what screw it, I hate cis people. And by that I don’t mean that I hate every single individual cis person that exists, I actually have several cis friends and family members that I am close to and love. I mean that I hate cis people as my oppressors, that I hate cis people as a class that oppresses gender-non-conforming, intersex, trans, and non-binary people. Here’s some examples of the systems of oppression cis people as a class have placed that still hurt us to this day:

I hate gender-reveals parties. I hate the fact that a baby’s interests, decorations, hell even their entire personality, is determined just by simply looking at the fetus’ outward genitalia. Not to mention how inaccurate it can be cause sex is a spectrum (meaning it’s much more than just genitalia, it includes hormones, chromosomes, etc, and these can be super diverse and I myself, an AFAB person, don’t naturally produce estrogen) which is why some intersex people don’t even know they’re intersex until they get checked out by a specialist in their late teens or twenties.

I hate cis people assuming pronouns, ESPECIALLY when it comes to people like me that are visibly queer. I hate going to a doctor’s office and having to listen to nurses and even doctors call me sis, girl, ma’am, lady, she, her, when over here I’m standing with a ‘men’s’ haircut and wearing entirely ‘men’s’ clothes. But as a whole, I just hate assuming people’s pronouns in general because gender is so much more than gender expression. Men can be feminine, women can be masculine, non-binary people can be as femme or masc as they want. Our bodies and our clothes don’t determine our gender. We do.

I also hate cis people not respecting pronouns on purpose, like that time at Einstein Bagels where I was wearing my he/him pin and the cashier kept repeatedly calling me ‘ma’am’ despite me wearing this 2.25 inch long button WITH MY PRONOUNS ON IT. I hate how I have family members that purposefully misgender me every single fucking day despite me being out as trans to them for YEARS because they just think ‘being transgender is a choice, like being vegan.’ I hate how one of these said family members does everything they fucking can to trigger my dysphoria and constant remind me that they see me as a woman.

I hate cissexism. I hate words like ‘lady parts’ and ‘boy parts’ and ‘girl parts.’ Boys and girls (and all genders) can have whatever private parts they have and still be their gender AND IT’S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, and frankly very creepy to want to know what’s in someone’s pants. I hate how instead of using terms like afab or amab it’s just ‘male parts’ and ‘female parts,’ ‘male body,’ ‘female body,’ which also blatantly erases intersex people that may have both, or something else entirely different.

I hate how cis people have made this concept about the ‘the perfect trans person’ that people in the trans community (yes, I’m talking about transmeds) will shit on our non-binary and non-dysphoric trans siblings because ‘they make us look like a joke.’ Spoiler alert, cis people as a class hate trans people because they’re transphobic, period, not because some random non-binary sixteen year old uses ze/hir pronouns and is non-dysphoric. I hate how I was harassed on this platform FOR YEARS and sent hate on and off anon by transmeds simply because I, a dysphoric trans guy, think you don’t need dysphoria to be trans. Because I think being trans is so much more about being uncomfortable in your body, because I think you can have gender euphoria and not gender dysphoria. And I hate how the transmeds that bullied me also called me all kinds of slurs (both referring to my ethnicity as a Latino and also just homophobic ones like the f-slur) and perpetuated exactly the behavior they see white cishet men perform because they think that way maybe they will accept them. Spoiler alert; they won’t.

I hate how intersex babies are mutilated every day around the world simply because of how they are born while trans children and young adults are still being denied access to LIFE-SAVING resources like hormone blockers, HRT, surgery, etc. I hate how long the waitlists are for trans people in places like the UK and Canada are to transition, and I hate how monetarily expensive it can be even with insurance in the USA, since this is the main reason why I can’t start T right now (that and the fact that I live with family members that wouldn’t support me transitioning).

I hate how anything can be a ‘girl’ or ‘boy’ thing. Things as simple as drinks for fuck’s sake. Why is a beer a ‘man’s drink’ and a fruity cocktail a ‘lady’s drink?’ Same goes for everything... clothing, movies, certain games, even basic chores like cooking and cleaning. Hell, even interests can be a ‘girl or boy’ thing. One time I was reading a thick book and this cis man (he knew I’m AFAB cause my parents misgendered me to him obviously) went ‘oh yeah us guys don’t read that much.’ EXCUSE ME SIR BUT I AM A GUY, AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH YOU!

I hate how when a trans person comes out as a child they are ‘too young to know,’ and when a trans person comes out as a teen they are ‘just going through a phase/copying trends,’ and when a trans person comes out as an adult then ‘they can’t really be trans because they never shoWeD thE siGns.’ There’s no age to realize you’re trans, everyone accepts their identity at different rates and that’s valid. And there’s no age to transition either.

I hate how when you come out as trans cis people magically expect you to suddenly not look trans anymore. How they expect trans men after coming out to have perfectly flat chests and no curves, how they expect trans women to suddenly grow boobs and look feminine af, and how they expect non-binary people to look as androgynous as possible. All kinds of bodies are trans, and you don’t need to medically transition to be trans. Some trans folks don’t have surgery or HRT or anything at all for whatever reason, and they’re still valid.

I hate how some cis people will misgender us trans people no matter how well we pass the minute they find out we’re trans. A trans man can have a flat chest, a full grown beard and a deep voice and the minute someone finds out he’s trans he’s suddenly ‘really a woman.’ I hate how this misgendering of trans people is one of the reasons why so many of us (41%) have attempted suicide, myself included. And I hate how badly cis people deteriorate our mental health just by refusing to use our pronouns and real name instead of our deadnames.

I hate all of these things, and there are so many more... but yeah, that’s what I mean when I say I hate cis people. I don’t hate cis people individually, I hate cis people because as a class they are complicit in my oppression and the way they keep upholding society contributes to our extremely high rates of mental illness, depression, and suicide. I’ve tried to kill myself too many times to count exactly because of all of these things. So yeah, call me a cisphobe if you want. I’m just a trans person that’s fed up with the transphobia, cisnormativity and cissexism that is shoved down my throat every day.

[haltyoubillowychickenwing]

Kaitlin Bennett and Liberty Hangout

Kaitlin Bennett is considered the internet’s most hated conservative, lets talk about why.

Bennett Is a twenty-five-year-old white cisgender heterosexual female who is a strict catholic. She rose to fame in 2018 when her graduation photo included an AR-10 rifle. This was a means of activism and advocating for her rights to bare arms.

She gets clout and content from infiltrating spaces that are meant for activists who happen to have different beliefs than her. She interviews them and posts said interviews on youtube and on her website. I watch these videos and feel great shame for the amount of politically uneducated people. However, I doubt that they accurately represent the intelligence of the left due to editing.

In this photo, she is dressed as Elizabeth Warren, a woman who ran for president in the 2016 election. Bennett is joined by a black man dressed as a white cowboy. To explain Bennett’s costume, Warren had lied about being native american to get a scholarship for college. They ask, “if my costume is not okay, then what makes what Warren did ok?”

Bennett was using this controversial costume to make a point. I am white so I don’t know wether this would be offensive to native americans though I can say I wouldnt consider this cultural appropriation because it is not Bennett adopting the culture of native americans. This does, however, feed into the stereotypes and generalization of native americans, which is something Warren did not do. Regardless, Bennett’s action is a strong method of raising awareness for the injustice Elizabeth Warren has done for the native american people.

The black man’s name is Joel Patrick and he uses his costume to ask if it’s offensive to white people. His costume includes white powder with light foundation for makeup, and a stereotypical cowboy outfit. Theres a point in the video where Patrick asks a white woman if his costume is offensive. The woman says it would be different if it was a white person doing blackface. When asked why, the woman refers to white privilege and how her ethnicity has not faced the issues other ethnicities have. How I would put it is the depiction isn’t offensive because it doesn’t depict white people in a bad way. At the beginning of the video. Patrick introduces himself as Tom, Woody from Toy Story’s grandfather in non-negative way. This is not a canon character, however, it does draw the line between what I would consider a good reason to portray oneself as a race that is not their own and a bad one. If Patrick was dressed as any cowboy, things would be different. This is because it implies that all cowboys are white or that only white people can be cowboys.

This next picture is what really gets me though.

These are her “Columbus Day” twitter posts. Take a look.

These are screenshots from Bennett’s twitter page about how she celebrates “Columbus Day”. One thanks Christopher Columbus for civilizing the west, and the other shows her wearing some native american inspired makeup. I dont feel comfortable speaking out about the makeup since i’m not a native american but I can certainly mention the horrific depiction of native americans. It nearly compares them to animals that needed to be tamed. It is so unfortunate that she cant see the damage colonizers caused or the civility of native americans.

Next I’d like to talk about her twitter specifically the concept of her having a twitter page and what she uses it for. Through her tweets she has made it clear that she does not believe masks help us, that she does not believe she should get the covid vaccine, that she believes pride is about broadcasting gay sex to children, and that a case in which a white woman was killed by the police should’ve been as big of a deal as the death of George Floyd.

Bennett does not believe trans people exist. She believes only in XY or XX chromosomes. She also fails to recognize the possibility of someone being intersex. She refers to crocheted packers (for ftm trans kids) as something to “shove down that pants of an innocent young girl to make it look like she has a penis bulge” while there have been tweets about this specific size of packer and how it seems to be for infants (it is smaller than a chapstick), i’d like to argue a point of if a child is wearing a diaper, it wouldnt serve its supposed purpose. If I knew I was trans as a kid, I would’ve loved to have one of these as a reminder that even though I look like a girl, I’m a boy and I have a penis. If your child can understand the concept of being transgender, then they can understand if they’re transgender or questioning. It hurts me to see someone so concerned about livelihood of youth be so ignorant of one major cause of suicide all over the world.

She seems to have something against all liberals and somehow still calls them snowflakes. Her ignorance disturbs me. I feel bad for her and her stereotypical 50s household where she doesn’t cook and clean because she wants to, but because she thinks it’ll make for a stable household. Her views on women and how she calls herself a feminist is disappointing too. Maybe Ill add to this post tmr if it gets a lot of notes, but for now, please see my sources and visit these websites.

*the videos wont link properly so just search ‘college students have no morals’ on youtube for the video where Bennett desides that college student have no morals because they support trans people, ‘Elizabeth Warren goes to college’ on youtube for the elizabeth warren video, and ‘what the heck is this liberty’ on youtube for the packer video (all on her youtube channel, liberty hangout)*

Liberty Hangout on Youtube

Joel Patrick on Twitter

Kaitlin Bennett on Twitter (links are broken, ill fix later)

[uncloseted]

I hope to be better one day. I believe in only two genders because I believe science doesn’t care about your feelings and I feel trans people are really attention seeking and always seeking validation always need to be included always need to be reminding people. I was born female and I’m not always included in everything and I don’t turn around and call people sexist and transphobic, sometimes u get left out cos that’s called life. I’ve tried changing I cant. I just keep my opinion to myself and just agree publicly with what others say. I know I am not a bad person but just wonder what it is that I don’t get it, I honestly think this is just me.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to answer this ask. I'm not entirely convinced it's a question that's in good faith, and the fact that this ask is in my inbox at all suggests to me that you didn't really engage with the nearly 4,000 words I've already dedicated to this subject, so I don't know how much I'll be able to add to your thinking here. But I know a lot of people do genuinely have these questions or questions like these, and so I think it's important to take them seriously for anyone else who might read this answer. If you really hope to "be better" or to change your views, anon, maybe you'll get something from this, too.

Science Doesn't Care About Your Feelings

So, you start by saying that you "believe in only two genders because [you] believe science doesn’t care about your feelings". What exactly do you mean by this? Maybe science doesn't care about your feelings, but science also doesn't support the assertion that there are only two genders. The scientific community is in agreement that trans people exist. The scientific community created the term "gender dysphoria", and it appears as a medical diagnosis both in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 (and will appear in the ICD-11). The scientific community supports the use of medical and social transition to alleviate the stress and discomfort that trans people experience. The scientific community views social and medical transition as an important tool to reduce the number of trans people who will die by suicide. None of those positions are based on "feelings". They're based on scientific fact- on findings that are testable, observable, repeatable, universal, and measurable. If you want to dig into the scientific research that has been done on trans identities we can, but I have a feeling that's not really where you were going when you said "science doesn't care about your feelings."

Are you talking about "gender essentialism", where your gender is defined only by the sexual characteristics you have? In your previous ask, you yourself seemed to me to be unconvinced by biological essentialism. Are we just arguing over the proper use of the words, "sex" and "gender"? Science views sex and gender are fundamentally separate concepts that are often linked. For example, the World Health Organization, an international, scientific agency of the United Nations, says that, '[g]ender' refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women" and that "'masculine' and 'feminine' are gender categories." The FDA, a federal, scientific agency of the US government, uses "sex" as a biological classification and defines "gender" as, "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."

But even if you were to take gender essentialism to be fact (and to be clear, I don't think we should), the idea that there are "two genders" is still incorrect. As many as 1.7% of people have at least one intersex trait, and there are many more who don't have all the sex characteristics we associate with being "a boy" or "a girl". As I mentioned in my previous post, some girls don’t have a menstrual cycle (due to menopause, hormonal birth control, low body weight, PCOS, etc), but they’re still "biological girls". Some girls don’t have a uterus (for example, if they’ve had a hysterectomy), but they’re still "biological girls". Some girls never develop breasts, but they’re still "biological girls". If you take gender essentialism to be fact, what is your definition of "a biological girl" or "a biological boy"? Could trans people who have transitioned be considered, perhaps, "a biological girl" or "a biological boy"? Why not? And where do intersex people fit into that paradigm? Would they, perhaps, be a third gender, if we take gender essentialism to be fact? And if not, why do intersex people get to be "a biological girl" or "a biological boy", but post-medical transition trans people don't?

Finally, there are very much times where science cares about your feelings. The entire scientific field of psychology is dedicated to caring about people's feelings and understanding what they mean. So is cognitive science, and psychiatry, and frequently, neuroscience. Behavioral economics and linguistics care about your feelings. Even the field of artificial intelligence and human/computer interaction cares about feelings. Feelings aren't a bad thing. They can help us to understand ourselves and others, and to create systems that work better for everyone. Feelings prompt us to ask the right questions so that science can answer them with facts. In this case, the feelings of gender dysphoria that trans people feel and a feeling of curiosity on the part of scientists led to scientific research about gender dysphoria and the development of scientifically supported treatments to alleviate that gender dysphoria.

Trans People Are Really Attention Seeking

"Trans people are really attention seeking and always seeking validation always need to be included always need to be reminding people" feels like a strawman argument to me. It's just something that can't really be proven or disproven. It's a feeling that you have, but not a scientific fact.

I think it's also an example of a "relevant logical fallacy", or what's more colloquially known as a "toupee fallacy." The toupee fallacy is a type of selection bias where a negative trait is obvious but neutral traits are not. Its nickname comes from the phrase, "all toupées look fake; I've never seen one that I couldn't tell was fake," which is an example of this fallacy. You've never seen a toupee that you can't tell was fake because you assume the ones that look real are just natural hair. The same applies to trans people. If a trans person passes, you may not know (or notice) that they're trans at all. Or if a trans person "acts normal", you may not notice because you're only looking for "toupees"- trans people who are, in your view, "acting inappropriately".

Which brings me to my second point, that this is also an example of the Baader-Meinhof (or "frequency" phenomenon. This is a phenomenon where, after you notice something for the first time, there's a tendency to notice it more often, especially if it's something that makes you react emotionally. Maybe it's not true that all "trans people are really attention seeking and always seeking validation always need to be included always need to be reminding people." Maybe it's that you're noticing it more frequently because it bothers you when this occurs, but you're not noticing all of the trans people who are just quietly living their lives.

Finally, I suspect that if we were more inclusive as a society, trans people would have to talk about their transness less frequently. If people are consistently calling trans people by their deadname or using incorrect pronouns for them, of course they're going to always be reminding people that they're trans. If people are consistently excluding them, of course they're going to be seeking inclusion. This is anecdotal, but one of my best friends is trans, and she never really talks about it unless it's directly relevant. And I think she can do that because she's always respected, included, and just generally treated like "one of the girls" (because she is just one of the girls). I said this in my last post, but I think it bears repeating- the people who are most insistent on their identity being respected tend to be the people who have been the most hurt by people not respecting who they are. Being insistent about who they are is the only way they feel they can be recognized or seen. They're operating from a place of pain. And isn't that sad more than it is annoying? It certainly is to me.

But even if we accept the (incorrect) premise that "trans people are really attention seeking and always seeking validation always need to be included always need to be reminding people".... so what? Does being attention seeking and validation seeking mean that a person's rights should be taken away from them? Because if it does, a whole lot of Instagram influencers are about to lose their rights. Does wanting to be included mean you should be ostracized from society? I think we all want to be included in one way or another. We all want to be part of a community that's bigger than we are. Does always reminding people of you are warrant people rejecting your identity? If you believe that, you should never correct that one person you know who always gets your name wrong and just accept that that's your new name now. You don't have to like people who you find annoying, but you can't just take away their rights or deny them rights because of it.

I Was Born Female and I'm Not Always Included

"I was born female and I’m not always included in everything and I don’t turn around and call people sexist and transphobic, sometimes u get left out cos that’s called life." Isn't that a bad thing, though? Don't you want to be included in spaces that you're excluded from right now? Don't you want people to be less sexist towards you? Don't you want the same rights that men have? I certainly do, and I think it's important to fight for those rights. It sucks to be left out, but more importantly, it's damaging to be left out. Being excluded from spaces has very tangible financial impacts on people, even if you don't care about the very real emotional impact it has. I don't want that exclusion to happen to me, and I don't want that to happen to the next generation of girls. Whatever I can do to make sure that stops, I'm going to do it. And yes, that includes calling people out on sexist behavior. It sucks to have to do that work, but if we don't advocate for ourselves, nobody will advocate for us. And I'm lucky that I'm in a position where I can try to be an ally to the trans community and use some of the privilege I have as a cis person to fight for them so they don't have to do it all themselves. I know how much I would love for men to use their privilege to advocate for women in spaces where we can't, and I hope I can do that for trans people in spaces where they can't advocate for themselves.

Final Thoughts

So once again, this brings me to my final thoughts, and a few questions I would encourage you to think about. What are you really worried about here? Are you worried that including trans women in women's spaces will make it more difficult to talk about issues that people with female sex characteristics face? Are you worried that trans people will center themselves in those discussions? Are you worried that cis men will masquerade as trans women to infiltrate women's spaces with nefarious intent? Are you worried that you'll say something wrong or offend someone? Are you worried that including trans women in women's issues will set women back in terms of the progress we've made? Is it a general discomfort with societal change?

Once you understand where your emotions are stemming from, then you'll be able to address them in a meaningful way. I don't think that "this is just [you]" or that you "can't change". But I do think it will be hard to change your view until you know the reasoning- might we even say... the feeling? - behind your views. You're not coming at this from a rational, emotionless, scientific perspective, and that's okay. But that means that, despite my best efforts, I probably won't be able to debate you into changing those feelings. Only you know where those feelings are coming from, and only you can choose to change them. I think you can "be better one day", but you have to choose that for yourself.

Extra Credit

If you're interested in digging further into this topic (or if you're looking for a fun and educational way to spend thirty minutes), I recommend the ContraPoints video "Pronouns":

It absolutely will not dissuade you of the notion that trans people are attention seeking, because Natalie is, at her core, a fabulous performer who uses elaborate aesthetics and sarcasm to illustrate her points and to make her philosophy lectures more fun. But it does directly argue against Ben "facts don't care about your feelings" Shapiro in a rational, logical way. It delves into a lot of the topics I was talking about the other day and also a lot of the topics you bring up in this ask. Natalie even talks herself about how the polite, easy thing to do is call someone by their preferred pronouns, but that she wants to truly understand why people use the preferred pronouns they do instead of defaulting to them because it's "dogmatically the woke thing to do". In my opinion, it's a good video, but even if you don't end up agreeing, it's not that long, so try it out anyway.

[the-exercist]

hi! i just saw your post about not generalizing about attraction towards trans people, and i 100% agree with it, but i was wondering why that concept doesnt apply to sexualities? like its prejudiced to say "im not attracted to trans people" but not "im not attracted to women" and im having a hard time finding the words to why thats true even though it sounds right

This is a great question, and I wish that I could give you a definitive answer on it. I don’t mind admitting that I have no clear cut answer about the distinction here, but I’ll certainly try. I’d also love for others to weigh in.

If we’re going for absolute essentialism, then sure, we could push folks to say “I’ve never met a man I’m attracted to” instead of “I’m not attracted to men.” But that type of language is deeply rooted in homophobia, ace-phobia, etc. It isn’t respectful to assume that someone’s sexuality is inherently fluid in this sense. We all definitely have our own preferences towards sex and gender, and that’s to be respected - Framing our attractions in terms of sex and gender is a clear & recognizable way of expressing our sexual orientation (and our personal limits!) to others.

There is certainly a biological element that determines our sexual orientation and is engrained within us to decide who we are attracted to. But even within people who adopt the same label, a main distinction is how we each individually define “man” and “woman” when dealing with both our own identity and our sexual orientation.

The way that I always think of it is that “trans” is the adjective, “woman” is the noun. What you may be attracted to is “women,” in the broad sense. The adjective that you put before it is the descriptor, it’s the illustration you create of exactly who you’re talking about. So when we’re referencing dating or sexual preferences, we want to get specific: You like blonde women! Busty women! Softball playing women! All of these things are distinct features that describe either some aspect of a woman’s appearance or her lifestyle, and it’s what may attract you to her.

What we have to recognize is that “trans” isn’t always the most descriptive term to use when expressing a preference, or when characterizing what kind of women you are/aren’t into dating. Are you talking about tall and muscular women?  Women taking estrogen? Women with facial hair? A penis? A surgically constructed vagina? Because none of these things inherently describe trans women - There are going to be cis women, nonbinary folks, and intersex folks who fit into those categories, as well as trans women who don’t. So saying that you’re not attracted to trans women doesn’t actually say much (because you may actually mean one of those smaller categories that doesn’t directly related to being cis/trans at all). It only shows that you’re grouping this huge category of women together and making assumptions about who they are, what they look like, and how they present. It’s like saying “I’m attracted to human women.” Uh, okay, thanks for sharing, but I still know nothing about your preferences.

Instead, specifically singling out trans women as a group that you find unattractive is often an expression of transphobia that has become engrained in our culture. It’s rude, it’s disrespectful, and it says more about your personal morals than it does about your sexuality - There’s no reason to explicitly dump on these women in particular or point the finger at them, unless you want to insult the group as a whole. (And there’s also no reason to publicly squawk about who you find unattractive. Really, are we 12? No one needs to hear that.)

Especially when we’re talking about minority groups that have experienced significant discrimination and bigotry at the hands of a culture that often denies their right to dignity (including women with disabilities, black women, fat women, etc as mentioned in my original post), singling them out as “not attractive” isn’t some innocent expression of personal preference. It’s far more deeply rooted than that. Simply saying “I’m not attracted to men” doesn’t hold that same power or history of discrimination. And while you absolutely always have the right to turn someone down if you do not want to date or have sex with them, pre-emptively & automatically rejecting an entire group shows that it isn’t really about the actual person or their qualities. It’s about hating the group.