#you are a human of the male sex who believes in the concept of gender identity

[butch-reidentified]

nobody has ever been forced to stay in a menstrual hut because they had a cramp and got moody.

do you hear yourself when you threaten to violently torture and murder people (women, mainly feminists, let's be honest - those are often the people telling you "transfem periods" aren't a thing) in order to silence them about having a biological function they're violently oppressed for appropriated by the oppressor class? women and girls all over the world face horrors beyond your privileged imagination because the bleeding is seen as unclean.

women and girls who don't menstruate, such as my adoptive mother who was born without a uterus, don't pretend to have periods. so why do you? why is it that women and girls like my mother are able to comprehend that no uterus = no period, and able to recognize that those who DO have a uterus often face acts of violent oppression over the shedding of its lining, but you do not share that understanding? why is it only "transfems" who need to make this about themselves and silence women who object to the absurd audacity of appropriating sex-based oppression? if you are indeed a woman with no uterus, like my mother, where does this entitlement and violence come from?

you post depraved, graphically violent threats - the sort that have never crossed my mind even at my most furious - designed to silence an oppressed group (female human beings) about an aspect of their oppression, and then wonder why feminists are increasingly butting heads with your ideology? you can't show a modicum of understanding of the issues we face, but we are expected to cater to your feelings at every turn. and this is different from traditional sexism how?

I am asking genuinely and in good faith, despite the unsettling vitriol of your original post, why you think this is an acceptable and not wildly misogynistic thing to say. why does it warrant fantasies/threats of brutal homicide to state that a period requires a uterus from which to shed the lining? how is it hateful or bigoted to recognize the life-or-death consequences of ignoring this fact when it's still a massive aspect of female oppression globally?

hey, whoever tells you transfem periods aren't a thing is a dirty liar and i'll gut them and feed them their own intestines

[genderkoolaid]

have u seen the post going around that makes a big deal of how lesbians can and do date gender weird ppl and then adds on a whole addition about how they ABSOLUTELY STILL DONT DATE MEN. and finishes with "lesbians do get with genderweird folks AND still do not get with men. both are true." just say you dont believe multigender people are valid and go

goddddddd these fuckin people

Not only do multigender people exist, but also:

There are trans men who were cis lesbians and transition. Their lesbian partners can stay with them and, while some may identify as bisexual, others will identify as lesbians! Not because they misgender their partners, but because lesbianism has always been a space for transmasculinity & those who love it! Their trans male husbands may even identify as lesbians still, or maybe straight men!

Even transness nonwithstanding... sometimes lesbians fuck men. People will make posts about lesbians thinking a twink is a butch and finding him hot but I'm sorry, sometimes a twink and a dyke will have sex for fun because they want to. Sometimes a woman who's never had a crush on a man in her life will fall for one guy, even a cis guy, because human attraction is crazy like that. None of that means anything for lesbians who never want to date or fuck a cis (or trans) man. It means absolutely nothing for you.

Like. I always think "lesbians can't date or sleep with men? Who are you to tell lesbians what they can and can't do? Lesbians will do whatever the hell they want."

This all on top of the inherent fucking nonsense of "lesbians can date genderweird folks but still don't get with men!!!" like I really need people to grasp the concept that trying to categorize genderweird people into "man" and "not man" is just never not going to be exorsexist. Sorry you can't reduce it down to "butches who are transmasc and maybe use he/him or go by "boyfriend" but they never ever ever feel like a boy or man at all which means they are Good and Acceptable To Fuck" its so ridiculous. lesbian sexuality & romance & community is so much cooler and more beautifully diverse than the fucking spreadsheet ass people could ever imagine.

[absolutehomosexuals]

The Infamous "Durge Is a Man" Essay

I - INTRODUCTION

There's one simple question that led us to developing this theory: "would Bhaal want a female heir?"

Bhaal created Durge to be his ideal successor: the hand who would've reaped death in the world, conquering it in His name.

Every detail we get about Durge's lore is tied to this objective, the entire purpose of Bhaal's creation.

The cult is obviously shown to us as patriarchal, which is hinted at from the sole fact they worship a male deity: the argument may come off as silly at first, since one could argue Gods do not understand nor care for the concepts of gender.

It would be a valid counterpoint, if it wasn't for the fact Bhaal used to be a human, having navigated the world as a fully grown man before he eventually became a God.

If we believe he created Durge in his ideal image, it seems much more intuitive for his offspring to be male.

II - THE MATTER OF SUCCESSION

We must note that Bhaal's plans heavily rely (as we can read in Durge's "diary" tab) on reproduction ; e.g "siring lots of Bhaalspawn".

This alone isn't coded as one sex or the other but, if we think of it in terms of convenience, a female heir wouldn't be your first choice for the task: women can only gestate one child per year and conceive in very specific windows of time within their cycle, while men can potentially impregnate countless women in the same time span and not suffer any physical disadvantages during gestation.

We should also consider women tend to develop a bond with their newborn and the latter needs to rely on them for survival during the first few months of their life, while a man:

1. has no such obligations from a social point view (especially in a medieval context, where bastard children were the norm)

2. isn't strictly needed by the child for survival, biologically speaking.

I doubt Bhaal was expecting his heir to keep track of her cycle, gestate for nine months with all the drawbacks that come with it, give birth risking death and spend the following months caring for a newborn – all of this, on repeat for years if not centuries.

"But he's a God, he could potentially speed up the process!"

Technically true, but why would he go through such trouble, if he could craft his ideal child as a male and avoid complications?

The game itself seems to agree with this theory, since you get the "Bhaal's stallion" line regardless of your Durge's gender, in one of the bad endings.

We could also consider the idea that reproduction = power, "spreeding the seed", to be a typically patriarchal concept.

Bhaal himself isn't fond of the idea of raising children, as he let Durge be raised by an adoptive family – a "regular" one no less, meaning he didn't even concern himself with choosing one.

III - IN-UNIVERSE MYSOGINY

There are many aspects of the religion that seem to glorify manhood, and for its leader to be a woman (by Bhaal's choice, no less) seems inconsistent.

Let's think of the infamous blessing granted to Bhaal's favourites, the Ecstasy of Murder, which basically consists in a pseudo prostatic orgasm.

Then we consider the presence of predominantly-male sexual crimes, both coming from Durge and other important figures within the cult.

We cannot deny necrophilia, for functional reasons, is extremely uncommon amongst women: necrophilic acts are typically carried out by penetrating a dead body, as it's almost the only pleasurable act you can perform on a corpse ; Durge being a known necrophiliac pre-lobotomy could be one of the many hints the character is meant to be read as male.

Not to mention the horrendous way in which Bhaalist female characters are treated in-universe, between Sarevok sexually abusing his daughter (and this concept being treated as completely normal by the narrative, as far as we know of) and Orin being constantly belittled.

We never hear of any male cultists undergoing the same treatment, meaning abusing women is the norm amongst Bhaal's faithful – yet again, a telltale sign of a patriarchal religion.

"But Orin isn't mistreated because of her sex, she's mistreated because she's not the true heir!"

Orin is, indeed, not Bhaal's biological daughter: she's related to Him by blood, but as Durge himself says, her blood is "diluted".

However, while he acknowledges she's not his biological sister, he still addresses her as such in multiple sources, meaning the cult leader himself doesn't care about her actual origins.

She's constantly portrayed as someone who gets talked down to, cast aside and her beliefs are harshly criticized both by Durge and others influential members such as Sarevok.

For Larian to choose a woman to fill this role could have been accidental, but we must admit the symbolism is quite clear.

Orin interprets murder as a form of art, while her Bhaalist peers frequently accuse of her misunderstanding her own faith, considering her too immature to lead the flock.

She's the only Bhaalist female character we're shown as remarkable, and she's coincidentally used as an example of someone the cult does not respect ; she's even biologically related to Bhaal and yet, she had to seize power by force.

IV - ROMANTIC SUBTEXTS

Another interesting matter are the characters commonly paired with Durge in fanworks: Durgetash and Durgestarion are the most popular romantic pairings according to ao3, and we cannot blame the fandom for catching up on the subtext.

Durge's "admiration" (as he calls it himself) towards Gortash is viewed as controversial and arises suspicion in-universe, to the point he feels the need to apologize to his Father and repent for an implicit sin.

While it would be scandalous to fraternize with Gortash even in a platonic matter – he's practically the leader of the rival cult –, the emphasis put on justifying their interactions has been interpreted by fans as romantic subtext.

The letter in which Durge addresses the issue is titled "Letter for Forgiveness", despite Gortash only being mentioned at the beginning, while the rest of the letter focuses on different topics entirely.

Right after expressing guilt for the way he views Gortash, Durge proceeds to repeat Bhaal's plan and promises to follow it, stressing that he would have made his Father proud regardless.

The letter overall comes off as an attempt to justify being attracted to Gortash and reassuring Bhaal that it wouldn't come in the way of their plans, as it would pose an enormous threat otherwise.

Durge being attracted to Gortash – if we choose to interpret him as a man – would come with a handful of important challenges: first of all, sympathizing with the 'enemy', implying Durge could abandon the idea of betraying him or even allow Gortash to do the same to him.

Second of all, being capable of such vulnerability that would come in the way of being a sentient weapon: a killing machine isn't supposed to feel pity, let alone experience something as foolish as forbidden love.

And thirdly, for Bhaal's heir to prefer the company of men is simply a disgrace, as it would come in the way of reproduction and possibly undermine his public image.

While all of this may have not been meant as a homosexual allegory, the fact you can find the Letter for Forgiveness on Durge's corpse if you play as Tav, still comes off as "bringing a secret to the grave".

Not to mention the note at the end of the letter, written by another cultist, reading: "Ha! Orin was right about her sibling." which is clearly a jab at what we mentioned above.

When you go to confront Orin in Act III (as Durge) about the fact she has been following you around town, she replies: "The little lordling has been whispering in your ears? He always knew how to tumble and twist your mind matter, leaving you knotted in his chords."

The matter of Durge's attraction to Gortash is seen as something silly and shameful at the same time: it's an open secret cult members dare to joke about, because they find it ridiculous.

If a hypothetical female heir of Bhaal had the slightest possibility of reproducing with the Chosen of Bane, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't find it as humorous – they find it hilarious because it's taboo, a powerful demigod developing a "school crush" on a male ally.

We should also talk about some of the in-game implications about Gortash, such as being someone who possibly "slept his way to the top": managing to charm and daze a much more powerful man on purpose sounds surprisingly in-character.

What we find even more interesting are the implications that come with Durgestarion, a pairing the writers are openly fond of.

We know both characters were characterized by the same writer, the latter going out of his way to include personalized romance interactions between the two: unlike other characters, romancing Astarion as Durge gives the player access to tons of new dialogue lines and greetings, sometimes making for a completely new experience compared to romancing him with a regular Tav.

Some hints may point to Durge being the "canonical" romance for Astarion, as many fans have speculated ; while one may disagree with that sentiment, we must admit it's not far fetched.

If we consider all of Astarion's canonical past relationships (meaning, the few ones he actually deems important and genuine) were with men, and the emphasis put on Durge's "admiration" towards Gortash + the incessant pressure Bhaal puts on him to reproduce, the thought of these characters romancing each other in an alternative timeline actually sounds liberating.

Some Durge-specific lines Astarion says during his romance arc seem to be aimed at a male character, rather than sounding gender neutral: the first example that comes to mind is "Are you alright now, or is today a 'I will wed you with a delicate veil of blood blooming over your white curls' kind of day?"

Astarion sarcastically references Durge "wedding him", thus putting the player in a stereotipical "groom" role from the start, with the veil resembling the one brides typically wear during the cerimony.

If we consider all other aspects mentioned in this theory, the line reads as somewhat... male-coded.

If we want to be truly insane about this theory – and of course, we do – , we could even add a "gay allegory" element to the equation.

A vampire and the spawn of an evil deity, excluded members of society who'd usually feel a compulsion to hide, are implied to fall in love by the narrative.

V - ACTING CHOICES

Finally, we come to the voice actor: while a specific actor was chosen to play the character and is regarded as the iconic Durge VA, Larian didn't concern themselves with choosing a female voice actor to include the possibility of a female Durge, which is why we can only hear his intro in Neil Roberts' voice.

VI - CONCLUSION

With all of this taken into account, a female Durge seems to be an after-thought, if not directly a fantasy or a headcanon that the game gives you the possibility to play out.

The original narrative, as we can see, best accomodates a male character.

[vexingwoman]

really simple question just to get it out the way:

Why do you guys use female/woman and male/man interchangeably when gender and sex aren’t the same thing? Is it because being a female is so close with being a woman? as in being a female automatically shapes the experience of a woman, especially when dealing with bodily autonomy? Because yeah someone may not be born female, but they can still identify as a woman… since gender and sex aren’t the same. But y’all treat it as such. I’m just wondering why?

I’ve already thoroughly answered this exact question here. And if you’re still unable to grasp the radical feminist view on sex and gender after reading that, I’ve answered similar questions on the subject here, here, and here. Now I want to ask you a question instead:

Have you ever, even once, thought further than the observation that sex and gender are separate concepts? Or is this one-liner the full extent of your argumentation? Is this your answer, excuse, and justification for everything? The threshold where your critical thinking abruptly ends?

Because I’m quite sick of your side whipping out the “sex and gender are different” card as though it’s the end of the conversation, when it’s only the beginning of it. 

Sex and gender are different, and therefore what? What is gender, if not a sexist social construct created to enforce female subjugation and male domination by ascribing feminine expectations to female people and masculine expectations to male people? Why should the existence of this sexist social construct be reified via claiming one can voluntarily identify into it?

What is the social construct of women that you claim certain males identify with, if not a coalescence of offensive feminine stereotypes? And why should a male who conforms to feminine stereotypes be considered a woman, rather than just a feminine man? More importantly, why should a male be granted access to female-only spaces based on his conformance to femininity? 

Essentially, why should the word woman be regarded as anything other than shorthand for adult female human being? If the word woman isn’t shorthand for adult female human being, and by extension, the word girl isn’t shorthand for underage female human being, then what words are? What exactly is the benefit of defining women and girls by the feminine stereotypes created to subjugate them, rather than defining them as human females at different life stages?

Have you ever considered any of these questions? Do you have non-circular answers for any of them? What would remain of gender ideology if you were forced to abandon your circular definitions and intellectual dishonesty? Have you considered that your side’s desperate devotion to circular definitions and intellectual dishonesty is simply an attempt to disguise how this ideology hinges on nothing but sexist stereotypes?

It’s very obvious to me that your side thinks radical feminists are simply uneducated on your ideology—that if only we understood, we would surely agree with you. In reality, virtually every radical feminist is a former gender ideologue who used to vehemently defend the exact nonsense you believe now.

Your side is on the upward curve of acceptance because you have not allowed yourselves to think beyond the surface level, beyond the cultish devotion to curricular reasoning, or beyond the uselessly vague, purely emotion-based statements. Radical feminists are on the downward curve of acceptance because they have. If you only allowed yourselves to think critically and honestly about this, I’m sure you would soon come to your senses.

[terf-gifs]

you dipshits who hate trans women are always bitching about how misogynists treat you like scum specifically for having vaginas, and that you as people are more than your bodies—at the same time, CONSTANTLY telling trans women that womanhood is defined by your genitals and that’s always weird to me because you’re basically admitting that you see women as walking vaginas. like misogynists do lol.

so you agree that misogynists' hatred of women is connected to our vaginas? that it's sex-based discrimination? misogynists believe that the inherent differences of the sexes are hierarchical. radical feminists belive that the inherent differences of the sexes are neutral, and that women's oppression is the result of a male supremacy enforced by male violence perpetrated against women on the basis of our sex. we believe that the concept of 'gender' -- which I'm defining as some innate set or sense of personal (rather than physical) traits and preferences typical of one's sex -- is an artificial social construct that enforces the hierarchy of male dominance over female submission. when we say 'woman' we don't mean 'only good for her vagina', we mean 'whole human person with hopes and dreams and unique self and individual preferences who happens to be of the female sex'.

so like. yeah. we're always bitching about misogynists oppressing us on the basis of sex. and then you call us dipshits for refusing to pretend the basis of sex is unimportant.

[butch-reidentified]

Pitching New Terminology: GLAP (Gamete-Linked Anatomy and Physiology)

A little while back, I remember seeing someone on here talk about 2nd wave feminist attempts to coin new terminology/alter existing terms as part of their feminism ("herstory" and "womyn" for example) + my wife and I have been talking a ton for a few months now about how language can feel so limiting, as counterintuitive as most people likely would find that. One of the things my wife brought up is that it bothers and bewilders her that "sex" can refer to biological categories, to the state of being male or female, but can also mean intercourse. She said this feels very male to her, and thinks that this word being used to mean both of these things (both of which are very charged concepts with heavy connotations - but only because of patriarchy) is not only unnecessary, but arguably harmful to the feminist cause as well.

Not only that, but sex (as in maleness/femaleness) is itself very much in contention these days - its existence itself is challenged in addition to its definition and the parameters of its categories. Even outside of gender identity ideology (GII) and the conversation surrounding transgender identities, there is a fair amount of inconsistency in what exactly people think makes a human being male or female, be it large or small gamete production, the presence of either a penis or a vagina, some sort of checklist-like combination of sex characteristics, karyotype, hormone dominance, the infamous pseudoscientific "brain sex," or something else.

I agree with Dr. Rashad Rehman's succinct statement that "sex is defined by gamete production," from his paper (which I've posted on several previous occasions and you can read at this link) refuting both GII and the catholic church regarding human sex biology & intersex conditions. As I've said countless times on this blog and he says in his paper, this manner of categorizing human beings as male or female does not require successful production of large or small gametes. Rather, it defines a human being's sex according to which of two overall developmental pathways their body follows; has your body (your anatomy and your physiology, as referenced in the GLAP acronym's A and P) developed around the "intention," so to speak, of producing large gametes or small gametes?

This is what led to the acronym GLAP (for "Gamete-Linked Anatomy and Physiology"), which I introduced in a recent reblog. She and I coined this term together to offer a more precise, better delineated alternative to "[biological] sex," and an alternative bearing zero denotative or connotative relationship to sexual intercourse.

By not only defining sex in relation to gametes, but placing the very word "gamete" at the literal forefront of the term itself, GLAP leaves little room for debate or misunderstanding when it comes to discussions of maleness and femaleness in human beings. The importance of this is well-stated in Dr. Rehman's paper, particularly in the following section containing two quotes from the writings of MIT philosophy professor Alex Byrne. The first of these two quotes references Brown-educated feminist scientist (and GNC lesbian!) Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, and the second cites Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex."

[Please let me know if image description is needed; screen reader test worked on my end, but who knows?]

We believe this terminology has the potential to combat misinformation surrounding human biology as well as to open doors within the discourse pertaining to GII and transgender issues. We suspect - and hope - that removing the word "sex," thus removing the messiness that tends to come along with the word, could perhaps reduce tensions and reactivity in order to allow for conversations to be had that otherwise would rapidly escalate or be avoided entirely. Additionally, introducing a new term like this requires providing an explanation of its meaning and purpose, the process of which we believe will help facilitate such conversations. We also feel that the novelty and hint of silly-sounding-ness could support the goal of reducing the tension and emotional charge currently embedded in gender discourse.

[radsplain]

a TRA talking point about "cis privilege" that drives me absolutely insane is the idea that "cis" women (ie. adult human females), who "ID with the gender that aligns with their birth sex, have never had to think critically about their identity as women and take their womanhood for granted, while trans women, who do not have the same privilege, have had to critically think about and dissect their identity as women, and therefore understand the nuances and complexities of womanhood more intimately than cis women ever will."

it's just completely nonsensical, for multiple reasons.

firstly, the idea that trans women appreciate and understand their "womanhood" more intimately than "cis" women ever will is downright laughable when you realize that gender ideology is built upon a post-modern faith-based spiritual belief that identifying as something actually does indeed make you that thing. like by that logic, Rachel Delezol, who identifies as a black woman even though she's ethnically caucasian, understands and appreciates her identity as a black woman more than actual black women because she wasn't granted with "race privilege," despite being born as a white woman (this is also a funny parallel to how statistically, most "trans women" are white, heterosexual males; people who by all accounts are born with the epitome of privilege).

that besides, how can trans-identified males understand womanhood more than actual women, when they've never and will never know what it's like to be a woman (ie. adult human female), and all of the stages of development and embodiment that entails, from birth all the way until death? how does a trans-identified male appreciate his "womanhood" more than an actual woman, when, when asked how he knew he was even a woman in the first place, can only come up with sexist, regressive stereotypes that align with the fake, man-made, misogynistic version of womanhood we call "femininity"?

secondly, the insane idea that "cis" women haven't had to critically dissect or think about our "gender identity" and therefore don't appreciate or understand womanhood like trans women do is such a blatant form of gaslighting and rewriting of base reality.

the reality is, actual women do not "identify" as women. your first mistake was believing that we all buy into the dissociative, disembodied concept of "gender identity." your second mistake was believing that being a woman means being content with the sexist, regressive, misogynistic gender roles that have been placed on the female sex in the form of femininity. what makes women women is not identifying with harmful, patriarchal stereotypes of gender; it's being female. women don't "identify" as women any more than people identify as blonde or brunette, 5'2 or 5'6, far-sighted or near-sighted, etc. you either ARE those things or you aren't. you either ARE an adult human female or you're not. your body is EITHER oriented around producing large, immobile gametes (despite the lack or ability of proper functionality) or it's not. you either ARE a woman or you're not. we do not use the term 'woman' as a form of gender self-identification. we use it as a form of class identification and categorization to describe the material differences in humans based on biological sex. that's literally it.

women don't need to "appreciate" or "critically dissect" our existence as women to be women, because we simply ARE. end of.

[butchpeace]

Hi I have a question! I agree with most of what you say on your page and it's such a relief to find someone else that thinks that way, and I'm sorry if you answered this before but I'm just really lost rn and I wanted to ask for advice. I'm a 18yo female and I usually identify as agender because I hate the concept of gender and the fact people judge me based on shit like my appearance, or when they assume I do stuff that are considered "traditionally feminine" because I'm a female. It makes me so annoyed and I feel like people don't understand how such a big part of the way we act and think and what we want is affected by phaucolooand socialization. I actually needed to explain to someone why girls don't naturally like pink.

I think the reasons people are trans are because they 1. Want to experience the world through a different gender (women want to escape misogyny and gender stereotypes ect) and 2. People associate personality traits and qualities with biological sexes bc of gender so if I feel more masculine I believe I'm a man because I'm my head being out society idea's of musculinity is being male. Perhaps some people would still feel like they belong in a different body if that wasn't the case but yeah.

I'm just rumbling rn, sorry, I did want to say though that I hate being seen as a women. I don't think it's internalized misogyny, I did consider it but I don't think there's anything wrong with being a female or doing traditionally feminine stuff, I don't think men are better, but I there's a part of me that wishes I was born a biological male to escape. I think that's how a lot of women feel. I hate calling myself a women because nowadays it feels like a personality type rather then something simply biological, and I don't care who people want to be but I'm just confused about myself and others and what I think.

For me, I'm simply me. I'm a human being, I happen to be female, it affects me when I go to the gym or when I go to see a doctor, and that's it. I have a personality and hobbies, I don't care if they're traditionally what or who I like what I like. I'm a person. But people seeing me as a women, putting me in that box of liking pink and being sweet and nice and all that traditionally feminine stuff, it makes me feel so fucking bad. I tried to convince myself I'm just trans but it didn't feel right, nothing is ever that simple imo. I don't know exactly what I'm asking for, but I'm just tired. I know everyone will always see me in a way I don't want to be seen and I wish gender didn't matter as much as it does. It's unrealistic to abolish gender rn, and we also shouldn't, the world isn't ready for that and people wouldn't actually change the way they look at people and just use it to their advantage. I think if we were to do it, we'll need to do it slowly. But idk I'm just about to start uni and I feel so lost, every time I talk to someone about this I feel like they hate me, no matter I'm which side they are. Every time I try to question why people are trans people get mad. I'm not saying you don't feel traditionally feminine, I'm saying you're rn biologically a male and the reason you want to be a female is not being your soul is, saying you feel like a women is saying being a women is one thing you can actually feel like you are, which is in a way, upholding gender rules. Fuck I hope I made sense, I just really need an advice and I read a lot of stuff in your page and I really need your opinion on this please. Have a good day!!

- 🎃 anon

I don’t think you’re as confused as you think you are!

Who you are doesn’t fit neatly into society’s box of “woman”. You hate how people stereotype you just based on your sex. You’re a whole unique person, not a caricature of womanhood.

You’re right that this is the way most women feel. And it’s the same reason why so many other women are identifying as something else now too.

You probably feel it to a greater extent and more often than other women do because you fit in with the stereotype less. But almost all women understand that feeling. Ask anyone you know, she’ll have a story about when she felt that way too. Even the most feminine ones.

You’re right that it’s not internalized misogyny - It’s actual misogyny. You hate the effect that actual real life misogyny has on you. You hate the way misogyny has created this narrow definition of “woman”. You see it more clearly than lots of women do, so you feel it more.

Identifying out of womanhood isn’t the answer. That’s not really gonna do anything tangible. Even if you took hormones, you’ll still be a woman.

The answer is to be completely yourself. Don’t change or diminish yourself in any way. Don’t try to fit in. Show the world that women can be like you, and they just have to accept it.

[claret-may]

For the record, here is Donald Trump's official stance on transgender people, taken from his campaign website.

Most notably, he's said this: "I will ask congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female. And they are assigned at birth."

And here is the full quote...<3 please stay alive, drink water, stay well-fed, and just fucking THRIVE to spite this man:

"The left wing gender insanity being pushed on our children is an act of child abuse. Very simple. Here's my plan to stop the chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation of our youth.

On day one I will revoke Joe Biden's cruel policies on so-called gender-affirming-care. Ridiculous. A process that includes giving kids puberty blockers, mutating their physical appearance, and ultimately performing surgery on minor children. Can you believe this?

I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age. I will then ask congress to permanently stop federal taxpayer dollars from being used to promote or pay for these procedures, and pass a law prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states. It will go very quickly.

I will declare that any hospital or healthcare provider that participates in the chemical or physical mutilation of minor youths will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for medicaid and medicare. And will be terminated from the program immediately. Furthermore I will support the creation of a private right of action for victims to sue doctors who have unforgivably performed these procedures on minor children.

The department of justice will investigate big pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long term side-effects of sex transitions in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients. In this case, very vulnerable. We will also investigate whether big pharma or others have illegally marketed hormones and puberty blockers which are in no way licensed or approved for this use.

My department of education will inform states and school districts that if any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body, they will be faced with severe consequences including potential civil rights violations for sex discrimination, and the elimination of federal funding. As part of our new credential body for teachers (?), we will promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.

I will ask congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female. And they are assigned at birth. The bill will also make clear that title 9 prohibits men from participating in women's sports, and we will protect the rights of parents from being forced to allow their minor child to assume a gender which is new, and an identity without the parents' consent. The identity will not be new, and it will not be without parental consent.

No serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender. A concept that was never heard of in all of human history no one's ever heard of this what's happening today. It was all when the radical left invented it just a few years ago. Under my leadership this madness will end. Thank you very much."

[vintage-bentley]

How in the fuck are you going to be anti trans and a Good Omens fan as if both the book and the show don’t explicitly establish the existence of several nonbinary characters and both Aziraphale and Crowley themselves are genderless beings

Not to mention both David and Michael’s staunch support of the LGBT (really emphasizing the T here, since you love to drop it) community as a whole, and David literally has a trans child

Part of me is even asking this in good faith because how do you see a series that is so incredibly queer and like it considering how much you shit-talk trans people on your lackluster TERF blog

There’s many reasons, actually! I’ll explain them in good faith, because I think that people who ask questions like this don’t understand the perspective of so-called “terfs” and assume we think like you do.

Firstly, I’m a feminist, so I’m used to media not aligning with my politics. I expect it, actually. Down to very simple things, like knowing I’m never going to go into a show and see a woman just existing with body hair like men do in shows all the time. But I’m comfortable and confident enough in my beliefs that I can consume media that doesn’t align with them. This extends to my feelings regarding gender. A they/them character doesn’t make my head explode, it’s just the same for me as seeing a Christian character (like Ella from Netlix’s Lucifer) or a female character who’s pro-beauty culture (like Elinor from First Kill). It’s a representation of a belief I don’t agree with and personally don’t believe in, that’s all.

Secondly, Good Omens is set in a made up universe with fantasy themes. I can easily get behind the idea that the true forms of angels and demons are genderless, because that makes sense to me in the same way God being genderless makes sense to me. This doesn’t have to carry over to me believing that humans can be genderless (I don’t believe in the concept of internal gender identity, because I don’t believe in souls. So I guess the better way to put this is that I don’t believe humans can be sexless unless we’re using gender and sex as synonyms). In the same way that it makes sense to me that angels and demons have souls that are put into bodies issued to them…but I don’t have to believe that also applies to humans. Or how it makes sense to me that Aziraphale and Crowley could survive without food, water, and sleep…but I don’t have to believe that also applies to humans. Etc. etc.

Basically, just because something is in a fantasy show, doesn’t mean I have to believe it’s real.

Thirdly, what the actors do in their own lives is none of my business. I don’t agree with supporting the TQ+ especially in relation to LGB (considering they’ve made it a primary goal to harass lesbians into pretending we can like penis, and to take every chance they get to express their hatred for homosexuality. I love to drop the T because they dropped me and my fellow homosexuals years ago). If two straight male actors want to do that, whatever. I also don’t agree with Sheen having a baby with a woman his daughter’s age, but that hasn’t stopped me from watching the show or appreciating his talent.

This all takes me back to what I said about believing you don’t truly understand the perspective of those you call “terfs”. Just because you might not be able to comprehend watching and enjoying something that doesn’t perfectly align with your worldview, doesn’t mean others feel the same. For example, many radical and rad-leaning feminists enjoyed the Barbie movie, despite it not being radical feminist. We’re capable of watching and enjoying things we don’t agree with, and of having discussions about why we don’t agree with it.

A much simpler answer to your question would be: I’ve always loved angels and demons and all things supernatural. I’ve always loved old cars. I love Queen. Religious/moral commentary and critique interest me. I love lighthearted comedies. I’m gay and starved for representation of healthy gay relationships. I love gay star-crossed lovers stories (go watch First Kill). Naturally, I’m going to love Good Omens, even if it doesn’t perfectly align with my worldview.

[snazzyscarf]

happy pride month.  i was watching the video from this post a minute ago and left my own comments & thoughts in the tags about how humans have pushed our own concepts of sex & gender onto other animals in nature and decided to make my own post abt it bc its something that i find really interesting

so i really love Ants, right.  and one of the main things i find interesting is that Sure, most ants in a colony are “technically” female with one (or a few) being able to reproduce.  and Sure, a couple ants in a generation that can mate with them are “technically” male.  but those terms Vastly simplify colony dynamics for the sake of equating them to our own human views on The Sexes TM.

like, there’s already a term for “male ants!!” they’re called Drones! just call them Drones, there’s no need to tack “male” on there.

similarly with Queens vs Workers! they’re both referred to as female despite there being major differences in their biological functions. “reproductive females” and “non-reproductive females” They Already Have Names. its Queens and Workers.

we’re so attached to our human concept of there only being two sexes that we apply it to creatures like ants who arguably have Three!! and even THAT is an oversimplification of colony dynamics! different species have even more niche roles like majors and minors (even repletes in honeypot ants!) and it’s FASCINATING!!

and sure, i understand that gendered terms are used to make the roles of these ants easier to understand colloquially, but i argue that doing this only further prevents people from being open to learning about and understanding the differences between sex & gender as a whole. like!! teaching children and adults about sexual polymorphism could be a GREAT introduction into understanding that biology is incredibly varied and how that is a good thing. it’s an amazing and cool thing, even! and i think that being upfront about it when educating people in layman’s terms would lead people to be much more open to the idea that there is more going on under the surface in Human biology.  and from there—gender!

it’s just like. clinging to what you were taught in Human Bio 101 prevents you from learning about so many of the wonderful and fascinating parts of the world we live in and its honestly really sad. what i’ve said about ants just now is only scratching the surface!! i really and truly believe that binary thinking is one of the most difficult barriers to overcome in our society, but i promise you that once you’re over that wall the world becomes so much more beautiful <3

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Race is Real and Not a Social Construct

by Larry Ball

Christians do not need to adopt the Neo-Marxist theory of race as a social construct in order to do battle against the CRT of Neo-Marxism. It is better to recognize the truth that distinct races do exist in objective reality, and that good and bad attributes become characteristics of races as a result of the religion that dominates them. This includes both black and white.

After reading a number of books on Critical Race Theory (CRT) by evangelical and reformed authors, I have become convinced that sometimes good men get it wrong. Some of the writers I respect the most are saying that the existence of distinct human races is not real. It is just a social construct.

What is a social construct? It is a convention adopted by society that has no basis in objective reality. For example, Peter Pan is a social construct. We all know who he is, but he is not real. He exists in the mind for entertainment purposes. A dollar bill is a social construct. It only has value because society has given it value. In reality, it is only paper and ink.

Social constructs are usually identified with Neo-Marxist thinking. For example, Neo-Marxists say that binary sexual identification is not real. The concept of sex that separates humans into male and female is a social construct. They push the concept that, in reality, there are a multitude of sexes (they prefer the term gender). As another example, the traditional family is a social construct. The idea of a male and female parent with children is a convention created by society to oppress other legitimate families like those who have two males as parents.

I am hearing from my respected brethren that race is not a biblical term, and therefore the concept of race does not exist. At the same time, these same men will say that there is only one race, and that is the human race. The human race includes all of us because we all come from the same Adam. There is no difference between us other than the degree of melanin (pigment) in the skin.

It seems rather contradictory to me to assert that the concept of race is not real, but then to turn around and use the term race to describe all of the descendants of Adam. There are no races, but yet, there is one race.

It is true that the Bible does not use the word race in any English translation. More common terms are nation, tribe, clan, and peoples. However, the Bible does not use the term “banana” either, but that does not mean it is wrong to use the word banana. Historically, mankind has been divided into races. Three prominent races are whites, blacks, and Asians (with variations in-between). They have differed in more than pigmentation of the skin. They have been associated with not only the color of the skin, but with the texture of the hair, the shape of the eyes, and even in physical speed and agility. If you have ever watched a college NCAA basketball game, you will see what I mean. I don’t believe that speaking this way is racist. It may be more racist to avoid reality and to say that all athletes are the same in ability whether white or black. We need to learn to be honest.

Race has been associated with the word nations or peoples who have a common geographical boundary, a common language, and a common religion. This is certainly not necessarily true of our experience here in the United States, but our nation is a rather new experiment in societies, and it appears to be disintegrating rather quickly. The United States was once a Christian nation, and this common religion provided a basis for the unity of the various races among us. We have changed religions and therefore we no longer have any basis for peace. A nation without a common religion will not long endure, just as a nation without a geographical border or a common language will not long endure.

Now, although we all do descend from Adam, and we all are sinners needing a Savior, we do still exist as distinct races (who probably have more in common than not). Jeremiah identified the Ethiopian as a man who could not change the color of his skin (12:23). Just as important as noting the color of his skin, the prophet noted that the man was an Ethiopian (Cushite) who probably lived south of Egypt, and who could be identified with a nation that had geographical boundaries, a separate language, and a separate religion. In the New Testament the Ethiopian eunuch became a Christian, which certainly teaches us that the gospel came as a blessing for all nations and races.

The Book of Revelation speaks of the New Jerusalem as being a dwelling place for the nations and the kings of the earth (21:24). Nations will not disappear, even in the very presence of God himself. All the distinct nations along with their kings shall be one in Christ.

God allowed various distinctions to develop among the descendants of Adam. God loves diversity in colors, flowers, fruits, the two sexes, and even races. However, absent from most discussions today about race is the fact that nations (and often the distinct races that define them) will always adopt a particular religion. This religion will have the major impact on the character that nation. For example, while our white American forefathers were writing the very complicated United States Constitution, blacks in Africa, who were sold as slaves by blacks to white Europeans and Americans, could not read or write. Why? The grace of God! Christianity conquered the continent of Europe and not Africa.

Christians do not need to adopt the Neo-Marxist theory of race as a social construct in order to do battle against the CRT of Neo-Marxism. It is better to recognize the truth that distinct races do exist in objective reality, and that good and bad attributes become characteristics of races as a result of the religion that dominates them. This includes both black and white. Most of the average guys that I know in the pew think that this “Neo-Marxist social construct invention” is nonsensical. There is nothing to be gained by denying the obvious.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tennessee.

[boreal-sea]

Gender roles, gender performance, and sex stereotypes: from a transmasc perspective

I think it's not "wrong" to have things we consider "feminine" or "masculine" or "androgynous", as long as we remember that these categories are not rigid boxes, they are not inherently connected to someone's sex or their gender, and that they are highly personal, highly cultural, flexible, fluid, and blurred.

"Well at that point they're basically useless!" you may say. And it's ok if you feel that way, as long as you don't abuse someone who feels happiness when engaging in their own personal definition of femininity, masculinity, or androgyny. It is not a problem if a trans man says "I do X thing that I consider masculine and that my culture considers masculine, and it is very validating of my gender as a trans man."

It becomes a problem if you believe men must do X, or that if someone does X, they must be a man or must want to become a man. That type of thinking is the belief that certain genders have prescribed roles. Gender roles are where freedom dies. Gender roles are inseparable from sex stereotypes - because of this, gender roles are inherently transphobic. The idea that females are more nurturing, that males are more violent, etc - those sex stereotypes are what created gender roles, because for most of human history, we did not have a social separation between sex and gender. If you were female, you were a woman. So you cannot have gender roles without sex stereotypes: they are the same beast. They are sexist, misogynistic, and transphobic.

Gender identity is your internal sense of gender. It is not the same thing as gender roles, nor is it the same thing as gender performance. It is completely disconnected from all of that. Having a gender is not problematic.

Gender performance is a highly personal endeavor. This is where an individual synthesizes every part of who they are: their internal sense of gender, their internal sex, their external desire for how they want to be perceived, their cultural expectations of masculinity/femininity/androgyny, their personal definitions of those concepts, etc.

A person's gender performance does not always "match" their gender identity in ways you might expect. A person may be perfectly happy being perceived and treated as a man by strangers but as a woman by loved ones. In other cases, folks tailor their gender performance to match their gender identity. In some cases, people are multigender or gender fluid! Having your gender identity and presentation vary is completely valid. Again, this is because there aren't actually boxes; everything is changeable.

[osakaonryoif]

The Romance Options.

So, it is time I start listing the details. Let's start with the romance Options, because that is definitely more important than the synopsis...

Makoto - Kage:

Sex: M.F (Gender Selectable)

Age: 19

Appearance: Black, dishevelled shoulder-length hair. Blue eyes, freckled face. 4’‘2 in height, making them the shortest in the group. Always wears an oversized green hoodie with their favourite anime character proudly presented on the front. Almost never takes the hood down.

Personality: Hacker, Gamer, Otaku, and pretty much anything in-between. Makoto can be trusted with anything regarding technology, but anything regarding reality can often be a challenge. Makoto seemingly has no filter, saying what they are thinking at that exact moment in time; be it inappropriate jokes, insults, or anything in-between.

Messenger #27361 - Kaen:

(Because the player sets the name of this character, all references to them will be “Kit”.)

Sex: M/F (Gender Selectable)

Age: Somewhere between 100 and 200 years old

Appearance: Red, wild hair, with length depending on gender selected. Red eyes, with a barely detectable feint glow. 5’'3 in height. Wears a traditional Japanese Kimono shamelessly stolen from a convenient shrine. When in fox form, has red fur, and two tails.

Personality: Kit is a Kitsune, and a messenger of Inari Omikami. You met them one day at a Shinto Shrine, and they decided they liked you enough to follow you. In Japanese Folklore, Kitsunes can take human form, and Kit does just that. The MC eventually gets tired of referring to them by a number, (definitely not because they cannot remember it), and gives them a name.

Kit is a seemingly endless bubble of energy. They like teasing anyone and everyone, and a good harmless prank is always appreciated! Do not ask about the harmful pranks, however. The Osaka Police department is already overwhelmed with arson incidents, as it is. Having joined a society they know nothing about, Kit spends much of their time being confused. They have a tendency to act like a child running around an amusement park, (which attracts unwanted attention in downtown Osaka), and Makoto constantly teases them.

Ryoji/Ryuko Sasaki - Temae

Sex: M/F (Gender Selectable)

Age: 34

Appearance: Wears a plain, grey suit. Has a tattoo on their left arm of a Cheetah. Black, slick, neat hair, which comes down to the shoulders if female, clean shaven if male. Grey eyes. 5’‘6 in height. If male, has stubble. Is missing their entire index finger on their left hand.

Personality: From the outside, one would think them to be every part the stereotypical Hardened and coldblooded Yakuza member. They pretend to not care about others, but actions often speak louder than words. Is very loyal to those they perceive as friends, and is easily angered when a friend is threatened. On the flipside, seemingly has no sense of self-preservation.

Masa Matsuzaki - Jiji:

Sex: M

Age: 42

Appearance: Black, messy hair. Blue eyes. 5’‘5 in height. Black, baseball cap with his favourite, (fictional) baseball team, the Osaka Orangutans. Wears a white, button up shirt with short sleeves, and a tie. Also wears jeans. Is rather muscular. ;)

Personality: Masa is a detective working for the Osaka police department who assists you with your not so legal methods. He believes in justice above all else, even if it means bending the law. He has no concept of ‘jokes’, and often takes the stupid things Makoto says seriously. (Do not ask him about the Takoyaki incident.) It seems as though he lives only to work, and he often has to be physically dragged into the break room to rest.

Midori Yasukawa - Hoshi:

Sex: F

Age: 21

Appearance: Green eyes. Long, black hair with green highlights. Almost never without a smile on her face. 4’'9 in height. Wears a long, black dress with green four-leaf clovers all over it.

Personality: Midori is a J-pop idol who runs away from her producers, and latches herself onto your group, saying she’s “bored”, after you interrupt a Yakuza meeting that just so happened to be taking place under a stage which she was performing a live concert on. Makoto is a big fan of hers. With a bright and bubbly personality, Midori surprises everyone when she turns out to also be extremely sadistic. Enjoying the various missions you take her on with concerning levels of Joy.

Secret RO: Red String.

Sex: ?

Age: ?

“You’re the war that I wage,” “You’re the love that I hate.” “Can you change me” “From the monster you’ve made me?” Starset - “Monster”

The red string has to connect to someone. Not a soulmate, per say. More like a soul sibling. Your “twin soul”. They are in important figure in the story of your life, as you are in theirs. The two of you may not reach the end of the line without each other. But if life was already written into stone, that would be rather cruel. While you must encounter this person, your relationship with them is still up to you.

Red String is a potential Yandere for the Onryō. They start out hating the MC, but with certain choices, this can become a sort of twisted hate-love situation. That is all the info I will give out for now. It’s a secret RO, so obviously I can’t reveal their identity. I will say, however that they are a character that has already been met in the demo.

[genderisareligion]

I really despise how the trans movement uses black women, women who have undergone hysterectomies, women who are infertile and intersex women to validate themselves.

They’re all females and they’re not comparable to a transgender male who has undergone hormone treatment and surgeries and who is choosing to present as a woman and live as such. I just don’t see any point in denying reality when it’s not beneficial to any side.

I was very much pro before and I still believe that transwomen should be included in the women category, but I just don’t like how the female sex has been modified and erased in the name of inclusion.

We can coexist while accepting our differences. You can’t even say adult human female that you’re immediately labeled a nazi…I’m just feeling so conflicted about it all.

You are not alone. I’ve seen many gender critical women say that they started off completely supportive of trans rights, and despite what trigger happy “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler” genderists would have you believe, most are still in favor of those that are actually rights, as am I, like freedom from violence for being GNC, shelter, safe spaces and access to the same healthcare as anyone else

But the problem is that gender identity is a nebulous concept with oppressive contructs and no physical location in the body despite being called innate more and more. What I do think actually exists is sex dysphoria (which genderists just call gender dysphoria now), but like you say, call it that, acknowledge that every single cell in our bodies is sexed so SRS isn’t really doing what Big Pharma says it is (which some transmeds and transsexual identified people are fine knowing), or acknowledge detransitioners and medical malpractice in the name of trying to help, and you’re a pariah 

Criticism does not equal hate, I wish more people got that. Criticizing gender as a whole for the damage it’s done to the world does not equal hating all gender subscribers 

[rjalker]

Together, I believe we can forge a coalition that can fight on behalf of your oppression as well as mine. Together, we can raise each other's grievances and win the kind of significant change we all long for. But the foundation of unity is understanding. So let me begin by telling you a little bit about myself. I am a human being who unnerves some people. As they look at me, they see a kaleidoscope of characteristics they associate with both males and females. I appear to be a tangled knot of gender contradictions. So they feverishly press the question on me: woman or man? Those are the only two words most people have as tools to shape their question. "Which sex are you?" I understand their question. It sounds so simple. And I'd like to offer them a simple resolution. But merely answering woman or man will not bring relief to the questioner. As long as people try to bring me into focus using only those two lenses, I will always appear to be an enigma.

-

Having offered this view of the complexities and limitations of birth classification, I have no hesitancy in saying I was born female. But that answer doesn't clear up the confusion that drives some people to ask me "are you a man or a woman?" The problem is that they are trying to understand my gender expression by determining my sex — and therein lies the rub! Just as most of us grew up with only the concepts of woman and man, the terms feminine and masculine are the only two tools most people have to talk about the complexities of gender.

-

I actually chafe at describing myself as masculine. For one thing, masculinity is such an expansive territory, encompassing boundaries of nationality, race, and class. Most importantly, individuals blaze their owl trails across this landscape. And it's hard for me to label the intricate matrix of my gender as simply masculine. To me, branding individual self-expression as simply feminine or masculine is like asking poets: Do you write in English or Spanish? The question leaves out the possibilities that the powetry is woven in Cantonese or Ladino, Swahili or Arabic. The question deals only with the system of langauge that the poet has been taught. It ignores the words each writer hauls up, hand over hand, from a common well. The music words make when finding themselves next to each other for the first time. the silence echoing in the space between ideas. The powerful winds of passion and belief that move the poet to write.

Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink of Blue, by Leslie Feinberg, free to read on the Internet Archive.