#cw transmisogyny discussion

[mr-ribbit]

this isn't meant to soften or reduce the objective transmisogyny + additional hate action going into this, but since the people running these harassment campaigns are acting like they're literal baby children who need their hands held to understand anything, maybe this needs to be said:

what you're doing and how you treat trans women on this website is fucking MEAN. if you want to sit there and honestly convince yourself that you're *not* a transmisogynist or a transphobe or a misogynist or any other type of bigot - like if you genuinely believe that and are confused why people are calling you these things - then maybe we need to start from little primary colored building blocks and tell you that you're being fucking mean and rude and actively harmful to real people who read the things you say. im not sure why we need to start off with "trans women have feelings" - just kidding I know exactly why we need to - but maybe you don't.

no matter who you're talking to, do you honestly think accusing someone you do not know of being a pedophile, en masse, behind their back /and/ in a public forum, is a reasonable way to treat someone for making a tumblr post about video games or political opinions? even if you strongly disagree with the post, you think someone deserves to be treated like that by people they don't know? take a second please and sincerely imagine how that would feel. wouldn't it be scary? wouldn't you wonder who the people were who thought this about you - if they're people you know - if they're just a few people that will continue saying mean things to you forever or if there are thousands of people who choose to dedicate their time and energy specifically to making you feel bad? if you accidentally write a post in the wrong tone or unknowingly interact with a shitty person, that there are uncountable people that will keep track of that just to hurt you later? that's fucking horrifying

and to zone in on what's specifically happening here: do you think randomly accusing people of being pedophiles or sexual abusers has no effect on them? like a lot of you tend to excuse yourself in these discussions by saying "I didn't actually see the context of what they were saying" or "I didn't see that they apologized already" or "I didn't actually understand the post was a joke" or whatever other kneejerk response to make sure *you* aren't seen as a bad person. do you realize that makes you look even meaner? you didn't bother to actually follow up on a thought you had about someone before sending them hateful messages or making public accusations about them? those actions are harmful whether or not you like the victim at the end of the day.

believe it or not some people you send this shit to are survivors of abuse themselves, or have their own historical personal reasons to be weighing in on a touchy subject. when you baselessly decide it's ok to call someone an abuser of any type, that person is probably *also* disgusted by whatever horrible shit you're accusing them of. as someone that hates these things as much as you do in order to attack someone for them: what do you think it's like to have complete strangers think that about you? how many eggshells would you walk on if random people thought so little of you that they were ok doing this?

it's mean. it's heinous, cruel bullying, and if you genuinely think you are not doing it from a place of transmisogyny or hatefuk bias over the victims' identity, then you need to understand that that's not an excuse. "i didn't even know she was trans" ok, it was still mean to call her a pedophile with 200 of your closest friends in public. "im trans so it can't be transphobia" ok it was still mean to assume someone was endorsing abuse when they were talking about being accused of abuse. "i didn't see the post where she said it was a joke" ok it was still mean to actively harass someone without bothering to look into the full context.

at the end of the day, yes, obviously I still think you're all transmisogynist assholes who are clearly willing to gang up on a woman who has nothing to do with your problems simply because she dared to speak on them. i think you're bigoted and unwilling to examine that if it means giving up your vitriol against someone who doesn't like your favorite video game or whatever excuse of the week. but like even if you were just doing it for love of the hate game, it's fucking weird heinous shit and i hope you're happy having that be a central part of your life

to be clear: im not transfemme and if I'm overstepping or talking over anyone please let me know. im not speaking for anyone's actual experiences except my own, which is the experience of being angry at how much literal bullying and harassment I see excused on this so-called progressive queer blogging website

#cw transmisogyny discussion #cw discourse idk #sorry pls tell me if im out of line and for gods sake dont go harass anyone ELSE if you dont like my post

[dogboymanbirddogman]

i think the foundational problem that the transandrophobia crowd cant get past is that transphobes literally dont see us as men. they dont. they dont hate us because of our “manhood” they hate us because we dont conform to the gender binary. 

like yes transphobes dont see trans women as women either, but the way that transphobia affects them is by abusing them for not conforming to standards of female desirability, ie their bodies make them “disgusting” and “unfit for society”, so in the transphobe’s eyes the only other option trans women have available is to be perverts; which is nearly identical to how garden variety misogynists treat cis women (if they’re ugly, they’re a whore, etc). transphobia against trans men doesnt harken back to a wider societal ill against their gender the way transmisogyny does. we aren’t abused for being men, we’re abused for trans men. and since society doesn’t hate men, then, well, we’re really just experiencing transphobia. 

it seems like such a simple equation to me. like if a trans man were cis, he wouldn’t experience any bigotry for being a man. he may get hit with homophobia/toxic masculinity, sure, but his being a man isn’t something society is out to get him for, it would be his “inadequacy” at being one. if a trans woman were cis, she would still experience bigotry for being a woman. because society views women as less than men. NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND!

#transphobia #transphobia cw #transmisogyny cw #misogyny cw #dogboy discussion

[moongothic]

Honestly what kind of changed the way I view One Piece was when I realized that Oda's transphobia isn't just a side-effect of him having an "outdated" view of trans people, but also like

One Piece is very much about Letting People Live How They Want To

And that includes not just queer people in general, but every single transfem person who either doesn't pass or doesn't want to pass, it includes not just the "acceptable, normal trans people" but also the kinda weird and/or horny ones.

Because Queer Liberation is for everyone

Like don't get me wrong, Oda may not fully understand the difference between GNC and trans people, and most of his transfem/GNC men (only lumping them together because Oda does that) look identical to how gender crits would draw "a trans person infiltrating women's spaces!!!!11!!!". And he does seem to have some actual gender essentialist beliefs (Luffy being "a vegan if he was a girl"........... Bro) with a healthy dose of misogyny thrown on top Generally speaking, it would be nice if his queer rep was more like 50/50 with the """"normal"""" (this is One Piece you know exactly what I mean) and weird queer characters instead of like 95% weird. Not just because it'd give queer people more characters we might actually want to relate to and see ourselves in, but also because it would maybe help drive home to queerphobic readers that One Piece is in-fact for Queer Liberation instead of supporting their beliefs that queer people are just "kinky men who like to wear women's underwear because they're delulu".

All this to say; no, the queer rep in One Piece is still kinda Not It. It could definitely be better*. Like I said at the begining though, realizing OP specifically has the belief that everyone should be allowed to live how they choose to and be free (something Luffy dreams of becoming, the most free person in the world aka Pirate King)... IDK it just changed how I view Oda's transphobia. Because it truly does not come from any sort of malice, it's just... misguided support

(*In fact, One Piece has/had the potential to be so extremely pro-Queer. Like we know trans people play a HUGE role in the Revolutionary Army and helping take down the Government already. We saw a FUCK TON of Queer people being held in Impel fucking Down, the giant prison facility that's meant for "the worst criminal's the world had to offer" that the government had to put away somewhere. I know the implication with the imprisoned queer people in Impel Down was that some/a lot of them were already imprisoned there for some other reasons (probably) and simply transed themselves because being a funny little queer in Newkama Land was a billion times better than being tortured by guards in the jail. Which is understandable. But like, my question is... How many of these people were imprisoned in Impel Down because of some crimes they commited, and how many were imprisoned for being queer? One Piece never exploring queer rights within its world is an absolute fucking shame. It is such a missed opportunity. Like all Oda needed to do was say "it's illegal to be gay on Island XYZ, these people were imprisoned in Impel Down for being queer". Just that, just one island could completely reframe how being queer is seen in this world. It would completely reframe the Revolutionary Army's queer participants, and it would not just remind the readers about why the World Government is Bad, but also drive in for those queerphobic readers that One Piece is, in fact, pro-queer. Like really rub it like salt into their wounds.)

#It's also good to remember that One Piece has never portrayed a Queer character as evil or malicious #(Bon-chan's being a frenemy for a brief time aside since they became a Turbo Friend right after) #Moon posting #Mind you I'm not saying that if OP had just one homophobic island it'd fix the transmisogyny because obviously it wouldn't #I'm just saying that it would make OP's Queer Liberation Message so much CLEARER #The amount of queerphobic OP fans is absolutely obscene and it's THEM who need it more than anyone else #Shit it took my queer ass like 15 years to actually get the message fully #Like I said. It's not good. It could be so much better. But IDK I think I just realized OP is weirdly more progressive than I thought?? #CW Discussions of transphobia #Sorry I just needed to get this out of my system

[autolenaphilia]

Detransition, Baby

Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters is an amazing novel.

You might think that it being one of the first novels by a trans writer to be published by a major, mainstream publisher would mean it’s a safe and sanitized depiction of being transfeminine. But that’s not the case.

Even if the premise is soap-operatic and may sound like the set-up to a silly comedy, albeit one dealing with provocative and heady themes. It's set in contemporary New York. Ames is a detransitioned trans woman, who now lives as a man. Ames has an affair with Katrina, his manager at work and a recently divorced woman. Katrina gets pregnant, but Ames is not fully comfortable with assuming the masculine role of a father. So he contacts Reese, a trans woman who he had a years-long relationship with when he lived as Amy, but which fell apart. Reese really wants to be a mother, and Ames wants her to be another parent to Katrina’s and Ames’s child. It will create a queer family structure where Ames can feel more comfortable.

It’s a ridiculous premise, both Reese and Katrina calls Ames a psychopath/sociopath for suggesting this. But they eventually agree to try it. And there is plenty of humour in the book, it’s a comedy in many ways.

Still this is an emotionally affecting novel that deals with serious themes. It tells the story of these three women’s highly unusual attempt to build a family, with flashbacks to Amy’s and Reese’s past as it also tells the story of how their relationship formed and broke apart and Amy detransitioned into Ames.

It’s so emotionally affecting because it dares to deal with trans people who are not perfect. They are not perfect feminist warriors for social justice, as inhuman in their perfectness as any idealized portrait of a saint. That might be what many readers, including many queers wants out of their media involving queer people. Escapism into a world where they don’t have to confront human flaws in their fiction.

The two trans main characters in Detransition, Baby are instead very messyand flawed people. They don’t do trans womanhood right at all. Especially Amy/Ames who is a detransitioner, perhaps the ultimate failure for a trans person.

Reese remains resolute in living as a woman, but she is a messy disaster queer. She deals with tons of internalized transmisogyny, which manifests in destructive relationships with terrible chaser men. She hides her faults behind a shell of a self-assured, witty, provocative and catty personality. But Reese also wants to be a mother, she wants a child to call her own.

All these faults, this messyness in their personalities is what makes them so relatable, so human. I don’t want to go into detail with how I related to Amy and Reese, because I feel that would reveal too many of my vulnerabilities to the world. But the book is able to talk about the realities of being a woman and being trans, because its characters are not perfect.

This book caused a controversy that centered around the depiction of Reese’s internalized transmisogyny, which she expresses in intentionally provocative ways. Of course, it was a transmisogynistic hate campaign from the start, started by Terfs and other transphobes, that used quotes from the book out of context to condemn Peters as a misogynist. The idea that Reese is not just a vehicle for the author’s opinions, that her abusive relationships with men are not some authorial ideal even if she deliberately seeks them out, seem to have never occurred to them.

The treatment of the theme in the book itself is much more interesting. It talks about how living in a patriarchy shapes women’s psyches, both cis and trans, how it defines their very identities. Women define themselves by their oppression by men in the patriarchy, the pain and the abuse. That is true even for feminists, for whom women’s victimhood under the patriarchy is their defining characteristic. “Hear women define themselves through pain, or rage against the assumption that they do, which still places pain front and center”.

And patriarchy also shapes our desires. Trans women are often accused of fetishising misogyny, but cis women do it as well. Many women have masochistic desires in their relationships with men, desires that are definitely connected to being raised in our patriarchal society It’s something that cis women writers, explicitly feminist or not have written about for ages. One of the most provocative statements in the book of how patriarchy and internalized misogyny shapes women’s desires, is “Every Woman adores a fascist”. I’ve seen it dragged out as proof of how much of a misogynist Peters is. But the sentence in italics in the book because it’s actually a famous quote from cis woman poet Sylvia Plath. It’s from her poem Daddy:”Every woman adores a Fascist,/The boot in the face, the brute/ Brute heart of a brute like you.”

Peters’s novel continues this difficult depiction of how women’s identity and desires are shaped by patriarchy that earlier writers like Plath had explored. And it has no easy answers to this. It made me think really hard about these things, which is what good fiction should do. If our desires are shaped by internalized misogyny, it doesn’t make those desires non-valid. For of course there is no noble savage nature hidden in our mind beneath the layers of being socialized in a patriarchal society.

But Peters has gotten so much criticism for her novel doing this, because she is a trans woman, and trans women are not allowed to have any internalized misogyny. That is a privilege reserved for cis women. We trans woman are expected even by our supposed allies to be perfect feminist role models, or else illegitimate. Our slightest failure in this regard is regarded as proof of our being misogynist men. The novel actually talks about this. The passage predicted and refuted the hate campaign against the book and Peters before it happened.

“..liberal feminists - especially the transhating variety - would have a field day with her. She supposed that they would accuse her of misogyny, of being a secret man, a Trojan horse in slutty lingerie who sought to recapitulate under the guise of womanhood all the abusive tropes that they, in the second wave, had sought to put in the past. But you know what? She didn’t make the rules of womanhood; like any other girl, she had inherited them. Why should the burden be on her to uphold impeccable feminist politics that barely served her?”

Reese is a depiction of a woman wanting to live up to some unattainable and unhealthy ideals of femininity. Her most tender desire is one that is pretty much impossible for a trans woman: she wants to be a mother. Her hope of fulfilling that in the weird and queer family structure that Ames tries to build is part of what gives the silly premise an emotional charge. Reese is a controversial and disagreeable character, and therefore so interesting and relatable.

The story of Amy/Ames depicts a subject that we trans people are touchy about: detransition. That’s because it’s so often used against us. But it’s a thing that trans people sometimes do, trans people doing it is actually much more common than the mistaken cis people narrative pushed by the transphobic media.

Amy’s story touches upon so much of the trans experience. She is a trans lesbian woman, and the book discusses how internalized transmisogyny and lesbophobia affects non-straight trans women. How they are stigmatized via concepts such as autogynephillia as perverted fetishists, and how they internalize this negative image.

Her character also depicts how us trans people often experience dissociation living as our assigned gender at birth. Living as a man, Amy experiences a kind of dissociation from her feelings and her body. It’s such a common thing for trans people to experience, as we can’t truly identify with our AGAB persona that we are living as.

It’s something that I experienced prior to transitioning, my own life, body and emotions felt distant to me, compared to my elaborate fantasy life and escapism through fictional media. That’s actually the one thing in this book I’m going to directly say related to my own feelings, because it’s something I’m pretty much over with my transition. In fact reading this book made me realize the extent of my own prior dissociation.

This dissociation from one’s own feelings can however also be comfortable. Feeling emotions directly is hard when they are difficult, and even joy can be difficult to process. And for Amy it becomes too much. A traumatic experience breaks her. She experiences violence from a transphobic cis man as her relationship with Reese falls apart. She dons the armour against her emotions that is masculinity, escapes her own feelings into maleness and detransitions. She starts living as Ames.

Detransition is something that trans people do. It’s driven by external pressures from living in a transphobic society most of the time. Living as a trans person, as a trans woman is made so difficult. It means living life as a freak, rejected by most people. Going back into repression is made so tempting. A detransition doesn’t mean that the person was never trans, or weak. It’s just that overwhelming forces are against trans people living their lives to the point that we sadly choose not to live them, either by suicide or detransition.

Amy/Ames’s emotional dissociation as a man shows how a trans person could live such a life. The emotional armour of cis masculinity can feel safe and comfortable compared to the emotional vulnerability of being a trans woman. It’s why it can take a long time to realize you are trans.

There is nothing simple about the novels depiction of these women’s lives, especially no easy answers. Accordingly the novel ends on an ambiguous note, with no resolution if the queer family of these three women will really work out.

Detransition, Baby is truly a masterpiece. It might be one of my favourite books. It’s such a well-written character study. It made me think in new ways about both myself and wider societal issues. That’s the highest praise I can give a book. There is something refreshing about a novel that dares to depict the struggles of being transfeminine with such honesty and humour. That dares to be ambiguous and give no simple answers. It shows imperfect and messy transfeminine lives, where we struggle with more than just the acceptable struggles of external transphobia and dysphoria. I seldom related to the characters and story of a novel so much, in ways that I can’t comfortably explain.

It’s more honesty than most TME people can take, dealing with difficult questions about being a woman and about being trans. Anyone who only wants art to be comfortably simple and escapist will be turned off. It’s not an obscurantist book, but the transfeminine perspective is so unwanted that it will be easily wilfully misunderstood by TME people. I’m happy this book made it into the mainstream and managed to get published by Penguin Random House. But that has gotten it attention from people that don’t have the capacity to understand it, and doesn’t want to. This is the cause of the transmisogynist campaign against this book that aims to destroy Torrey Peters’s writing career. The cis can’t accept a trans woman author. Yet I hope that Peters will keep on writing, we need her perspective so badly.

#detransition baby #torrey peters #my writings #cw for discussions of transmisogyny #seriously read this book #i spoiled it basically but this book made me think so much #and feel so deeply

[genderkoolaid]

Cw: "Aaron" Bushnell https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/bushnell-gaza-immolation-protest-trans-identity

I thought I should let you know if you didn't already. Rip Lilly

While there is evidence pointing to Lilly/Aaron being trans, I still think we should be careful in how we talk about it. I don't really have a problem agreeing that the username and the reddit history does feel like someone who, at least, is exploring their gender identity. A person who says they knew him/her in life is very insistent that s/he could not have been a trans woman based on private information. However, others who have said they spoke with him/her online frequently insist s/he went by Lilly and used she/her and he/him. Although I don't think there's any reason necessarily for those folks to be lying, I do wish there were actual screenshots of the pronoun use in discord servers? Given that rn the conversation is just People Online Making Claims.

I'm still unsure of how I feel we should talk about this tbh. Lilly/Aaron was very deliberate in how s/he presented his/her gender to the public. As the person interviewed says, I don't think Bushnell would be upset by being seen as trans if s/he was a cis man. But even if s/he was trans, I am hesitant to make assumptions about what is best for a trans person's legacy. The issue of trans recognition in death is very sensitive for most of us, so I understand why people are so invested in this. But it should be kept in mind that the discussion around Bushnell's gender should not overshadow support for Palestinians. That was his/her goal and its clear that s/he cared more about that than making a statement about his/her own gender. It is fully possible for a trans person to make the decision to let themselves be assumed cis, and be comfortable in that decision, and its not up to other trans people to decide whether they made the wrong decision with their own legacy.

Its possible s/he made that decision solely because s/he wanted to prevent his/her message from being derailed by transmisogyny. But again, that shows to me that s/he wanted more than anything for his/her death to be focused entirely on raising support for Palestine. I don't want to be patronizing about Lilly/Aarons's decisions and I definitely don't want any Discourse on this to do exactly what s/he was trying to avoid. Additionally, Bushnell is reported as having used he/she pronouns. The person who claims s/he used both uses both Aaron and Lilly. Its very easy for genderqueer and nonbinary people to have their identities reduced to binaries in death, even by other trans people. If s/he was trans, why are we making assumptions about if s/he was fine with being called a woman, or that s/he wasn't okay with being called a man? There is too much grey space and too much exorsexism that goes unchallenged in our community for me to not feel the need to point this out.

Anyways. I guess my Take on this is that both trans and suicidal people tend to have our choices undermined, and have people on all sides debate over what we Really mean and what we Really want. We are rarely seen as being the experts on ourselves, or having our autonomy respected even when it makes others confused or uncomfortable. I don't think anyone online discussing this can have a full picture of The Truth. Like I said, I don't think there's any reason to assume people claiming they knew Lilly and that s/he used she/her and he/him pronouns are lying right now. But more than anything I'm concerned that the debate over this could end up doing exactly what Lilly/Aaron was trying to avoid. And I don't think its my place to insist any trans person has to be out. I want to respect what s/he wanted for his/her legacy. I don't want him/her to be a trans hero if that results in detracting from his/her goals.

I think this is part of larger moral issue trans activists have to deal with when it comes to trans history: when is it okay for us to correct the language someone used for themselves? When is it illuminating and respectful, and when is it whitewashing someone's own self-perspective to fit our goals? Bushnell was extremely purposeful in everything s/he did as a part of his/her suicide, and that includes how s/he presented his/her gender. I don't want to disrespect those decisions.

#m. #ask box #suicide tw #aaron bushnell #lilly bushnell

[canonmisogynyvictimstournament]

PROPAGANDA

DRAGONA JOESTAR (JOJO'S BIZARRE ADVENTURE: THE JOJOLANDS) (CW: Transphobia)

1.) While JoJolands has only barely started, Dragona already is not being treated too well. In her first appearance, a police officer sexually assaults her, and in addition makes comments about how her being transgender makes the situation more exciting for him.

Her brother misgenders her, referring to her as “"big bro”“ despite knowing she takes ”“cosmetic injections”“ that caused her to grow breasts, but this could be just a nickname Dragona doesn’t mind, ignorance from her brother, or from lack of clarity due to all translations this far being unofficial. Otherwise, Dragona isn’t usually referred to with any gendered pronouns, which could be due to the source material being in Japanese, which doesn’t really use third person pronouns, substituting them with names.

While I hope Part 9 starts treating her better, the very beginning of the story has been rough on Dragona.

2.) The JoJolands went from 0 to sexual assault in 10 pages. Yes, Dragona is sexually assaulted by a police officer less than 10 pages into the manga. The pigs then get their asses kicked by her little brother Jodio, because so far in this story, Dragona has very little ability to stand up for herself. Then there’s the fact that she isn’t even explicitly a woman in the story. She was amab, and is described as wearing feminine clothing, and having injections so she has breasts. Still, Dragona is referred to as Jodio’s big brother, and primarily uses masculine pronouns in the fan translation despite some fluidity in that department from the original Japanese. It is unclear what the author’s intent is here, and I’m not one to try and guess what’s going on in that man’s mind. There’s a chance she gets a lot of development and ends up being a well-written character. I’m not terribly optimistic with what we’ve seen so far.

3.) After 35 years of misogyny and transmisogyny, the author decided to be bold and make one of the main characters of the new part a trans woman! … who gets SAed in the first chapter and who gets the "just a tr*p” label slapped on by the narrative despite her transition being fucking discussed. You can always count on Jojo for misogyny!

GWEN STACY (MARVEL COMICS)

1.) One of the most famous examples of fridging of all time. Marvel reintroduced physics for five seconds to kill her off, then forgot about them again.

2.) Got killed off because a (male) writer thought she was a boring love interest.

3.) Got fridged

#polls #round 1 #week 2 #new #cw transphobia

[transmisogyny-explained]

(CW talk of sexual assault)

(a bit of leeway for you)

A trans woman explains the frustration of discussing sexual assault statistics and how trans women are treated like liars.

The first response: "and trans men..."

Like c'mon get your own fucking post. I'm not implying trans men don't face this kind of shit but for all the talk of trans women "taking over conversations"...

I think that some people, when confronted with the reality of transmisogyny, have this reflexive, perhaps unconscious need to deny that what they’re seeing is indeed transmisogyny, but they also don’t want to be seen and labeled as outwardly transmisogynistic; so they will implicitly deny these examples by “yes and”-ing whatever point is being made, to also make it about how something similar might sometimes happen to certain groups of TME trans people. That way it seems like a positive response made from the desire for solidarity, but in reality it’s a way of subtly going, “This is not transmisogyny because it’s not unique to trans women.” I do think that some people who do this are well-intentioned, but they really need to examine why they feel the need to always bring up TME trans people’s experiences in discussions of transmisogyny.

#undescribed

[lesser-vissir]

Okay, required reading if you want to engage with my posts about transmisogyny.

https://purecatharsis.medium.com/we-need-to-talk-about-transmisogyny-6bdf0e79d29c

[l4nterns]

NORFOLK TRANS YOUTH DOCUMENTARY

CW: Discussions of transphobia, homophobia, depression, suicidality, Sexual Violence, Domestic Violence, transmisogyny, media representation of trans people, healthcare

In the UK climate of transphobic smear, sensationalism, and fear-mongering, here is a documentary I produced, filmed, edited and scored in partnership with Norwich based trans support group Evolve. Norfolk Trans Youth lends voice to REAL trans young people to talk about the REAL material struggles they face in the UK today, but also about the lives they create for themselves in the powerful catharsis of self-actualisation in defiance against the systemic oppressions they face.

#trans rights #transgender #britain #terfs #gender critical #transphobia #gatekeeping #anti-fascism #trans healthcare #trans education #worker's rights #documentary #mancroft advice project #norfolk trans youth #trans 101 #evolve group #norfolk #Vimeo #non binary #enby #faegender #norwich #lgbt #lgbtqia #educational resource #altered wave

[tye-wig-music]

cw murder, transmisogyny, discussion of serial killers

ultimately I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that brianna ghey’s killing was motivated more by a Leopold & Loeb-esque desire to commit a murder as the enactment of a power fantasy (the alleged killers discussed multiple potential victims before settling on Brianna) rather than principally by transmisogyny per se (although - in case you haven’t read the reports - one of the defendants referred to Brianna as “it” in whatsapp correspondence & the other seems to have been erotically fascinated by her; dehumanisation & objectification were doubtlessly factors here; I mean more that it does not seem on the face of it to have comprised any sort of first step in a genocidal programme). of course, dahmer’s victims were preponderantly gay men of colour; the yorkshire ripper’s, predominantly sex workers; it is no accident that the targets of sadistic and psychologically-motivated murders are regularly vulnerable, disempowered members of marginalised groups. this trial is in its infancy and further facts may come out, but for the moment it seems that the transmisogny implicit in this horrific act of violence was indeed largely implicit; her killers may have had an easier time committing her murder because of her trans identity, but were not apparently motivated specifically by it. Which I did find surprising, but perhaps should not have.

#personal #I was inevitably deeply affected by this story as it broke in february and remain such

[madaboutpod]

Season 3 Episode 1

Westin (he/they) and Easton (she/her), are joined by special guest Nikki (she/her/they) to discuss a buckwild TERF essay that Easton wishes had gone viral. Jean Hatchet, radical feminist and JK Rowling reply guy, wrote in defense of her hero's boobs, and hilarity ensued.

In part 1, we lay out the background, briefly defining TERFs, radical feminism, and the history of the (white) feminist sex wars. We look at how The Critic Magazine describes itself vs the content they put out. And, we profile Jean Hatchet, her gatekeeping pseudonym, her activist network’s contradictions, and her fangirling love for JK Rowling.

We also see a return of spooky vibes and mind reading, ideology over material reality, crying censorship to claim victimhood when one’s reactionary politics get less popular, the impulse to protect every unbaked thought from critical analysis, and disingenuous free speech activism as a gateway for bigoted violence.

Other threads include: brunch selfie feminist activism, body shaming, wRoNgThInK, and attempts to twist statistics when they prove your point wrong, over and over again. We also rant about bad schooling practices, needing dubs to watch anime while playing video games, privileged white organizers making messes for BIPOC and queer folks to clean up, and “respecting” disabled people’s COVID precautions.

Content warning for transmisogyny and misogyny - specifically mentions of disproportionate domestic violence and murder, TERFs making light of those, references to misgendering, and scrutinizing bodies and appearances.

The original article:

The Critic Magazine’s self-description:

The Critic Magazine’s Launch Editorial:

Counting Dead Women (CW - The content gets graphic and very transphobic):

Check our Instagram @WAYMATpod to view all the images we describe! Find links and more on our Twitter @MadAbout Pod. Donate at PayPal.me/MadAboutPod.

Please share, like, review, and subscribe to help us get off the ground!

You can watch Nikki stream at Twitch.tv/aliteraltranswoman. Follow her on Twitter @literal_trans, and on Instagram @dump_gf_666.

Our theme song is "Angry Dance" by Simon Panrucker, which is licensed under a Creative Common Attribution-ShareAlike License. Listen to him here:

We made small changes like taking snippets for our intro and transitions, and play the song in full at the end with our own ad-libs.

This podcast is not endorsed by Simon Panrucker, and only reflects the opinions of the hosts, Westin and Easton.

--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mad-about-pod/message

#Spotify

[autolenaphilia]

Fix your hearts or die (seriously)

(Cw for discussion of suicide and suicidal thoughts, transmisogyny and general transphobia.)

As a trans woman, a lot of people want me to die and deny my human rights. And my response to that is that I hate them and want them to die in return. If you want me to die, I want you to die, quid pro quo. I feel some happiness when I hear of transphobes dying, and wish their comrades in their fight against me and others like me will soon join them.

Transphobes will probably be very offended by that statement of mine and go “we just disagree with transgender ideology, we don’t hate trans people and want them to die, it’s you who are hateful and intolerant, you are just an entitled male who can’t handle people having a different opinion, blah blah blah”, and so on ad nauseam. But what I just wrote is an entirely justified response to transphobia.

Transphobes aren’t satisfied until trans people are literally eradicated, either all dead or forced to detransition. “Morally mandated out of existence”, as an early TERF put it. I’m not presuming some complicated master plan or conspiracy, it’s just that transphobia is a systematic ideological underpinning of our society. It views being trans as evil and disgusting. And consequently transphobes want trans people to just disappear or at least not exist in a way where they have to see them or think about them, which amounts to the same thing. They want trans people to just go away by any means. Sometimes this means directly killing trans people, but transphobia takes more indirect forms in their attempt to eradicate trans people.

Transphobes want trans people to not have the means to transition, therefore they want the state and society to deny trans people healthcare and legal gender changes. They want to force trans people out of public spaces by denying access to bathrooms or changing rooms.

It’s all with the goal of making existence as a trans person so difficult that they will rather detransition or commit suicide. And I consider detransition a form of death for a trans person, such a deep denial of identity that it might as well be death. It’s that simple. My name is Lena, I am her and if I was forced to detransition she would cease to exist and thus effectively be dead, even if the body goes on. And pressuring or forcing trans people to detransition is tantamount to murder. It’s forcing people into such a hollow existence that it can hardly be called living. And it does often lead to people attempting suicide.

The struggles mental illness and suicidal thoughts that so many trans people have is not because being trans is inherently a disturbed state of being, it’s because of transphobia. It’s because we are denied healthcare and other rights, discriminated against, harassed, assaulted and sometimes killed. Being openly trans out in society often means at least being stared at in disgust or having transphobic epithets shouted at you. It wears you down.

Again, transphobic cis people wants trans people to not exist, to force them out of public spaces. The cruelty is the point, it always is. They want to force trans people to solve “the trans issue” themselves by detransition or committing suicide. The suicides of trans people is the effect of transphobia, and transphobes are partially responsible for them. These suicides are murder.

This is the horrible cost of transphobia. The people who perpetuate it are horrible people, they are evil. And unlike being trans, it’s a choice they make. I don’t care what excuses they wrap their bigotry whether it be religion or feminism, you can believe in gods or fight for women’s rights without being a transphobic ghoul. They choose to be cruel. They can stop being cruel, and I would welcome that. But until then they won’t get any of my empathy. So I will continue to mentally celebrate a bit when one of them dies.

The tv series Twin Peaks by Mark Frost and David Lynch actually put this most succinctly in season 3, Part 4: “Fix your hearts or die!”. That quote is quite literally aimed at transphobes, and that pretty much sums up how I feel. It’s good if people fix their hearts so to say and stop being evil to trans people. But if they do not, they should just die. It’s only fair that if someone wants me dead, I should wish them dead.

#cw: suicide #cw:transphobia #my writings

[thosemintcookies]

Cw: transmisogyny, as in, discussions of

I keep seeing really shitty takes out there in the world about transmisogyny and even transmascs (who should really know better) acting really badly about the whole concept but we have to be really really honest about how patriarchy, transphobia, bioessentialism (plus racism and colonialism but we font have time for that here) all interact to produce transmisogyny, which isn't just transphobia + misogyny.

Because lbr, transmasc people are also subject to transphobia. Like obviously. And therefore, having their masculine gender derided and negated, they are also subject to misogyny because they are assumed to be women.

But its about the dominant patriarchal and bioessentialist narratives we have: specifically about the "aggressive," "ugly" penis, about the amab body as inherently violent, and about femininity as inherently lesser than masculinity. Its about narratives of predation automatically being applied to transfemmes in ways it is not applied to transmascs.

Like we have genuinely be nuanced about this. It's not just about trans men getting male privilege (which lbr, doesn't apply in all cases) but about the ways shitty transphobic narratives harm transfemmes specifically.

Its about how mainstream society privileges masculinity and maleness and that therefore, transfemmes, who are seen as failed men and, in desiring femininity (of any expression) which further marginalizes them, are seen as more "degenerate" than their transmasc counterparts. Its about this specific narrative. It's about how cisnormativity can't understand why someone with male privilege would "want to be" a woman (because they can't conceive of a woman just being a woman by virtue of being a woman). It's about that dissonance being resolved through characterization of transfemmes as predators.

Like yes trans men experience their own struggles distinxt from trans women but the whole thing about transandrophobia and transmisandry is getting pretty transmisogynistic.

And this is the limitation of the model of thinking about marginalization solely through the lens of "privilege" and who has/does not have it. Because there are some trans femmes (who are not out, who have masculine names, who choose to present in masculine ways, etc) who may still experience male privilege in certain contexts. But the narratives that harm them and dehumanize them still exist and harm them through transmisogyny. The framework here is about dehumanizing narratives. Not solely privilege, because this is an extemely murky discussion and is not straightforward. Though let's also be honest, transfemme bodies are not treated in our mainstream society with the reverence they should be.

(Though to be actually precise here: trans men are exempt from transmisogyny and that is a privilege)

(To a lesser degree, I think this was the problem of trying to discuss anti-asian racism because in a lot of ways Asian people in White Society do not have the same struggles of being erased through genocide and dehumanized as commodity. Asians do have a economic privileges because our exclusion from immigration meant we don't have the same connection to genocide and slavery in our histories on settler colonial states for the most part. But we're still poc and the ways we get dehumanized and used as model minorities to justify racism to other groups is still not ideal. Asian labour is devalued, and struggles of identity and cultural consildation also get erased.)

#disclaimer im afab nonbinary btw. if transfemmes have anything to add be my guest #but i will also leave this untagged in disk horse tags bc whatever #long post

[slowtides]

Just some thoughts that I'm working through re: issues of radical feminism and transmisogyny. I'd be interested in discussion and conversation around these points, because these are things I've had to struggle through and approach from multiple perspectives. I'm always glad to talk to people who want to discuss in good faith. CW for discussions of transphobia

So much of the debate about trans issues within various feminist communities is predicated on gross misrepresentation, strawmanning, and ad hominem attacks that lack good faith discourse. The only thing I think is worth engaging with and interrogating is the idea of feeling like a woman--not because I would use that to dismiss transwomen's identities, but because I think it is a worthy endeavor to seek to understand different experiences of and paths to girlhood/womanhood. Also, I'm specifically discussing radical feminists, not right wing fundamentalists or whatever that have embraced radical feminist talking points.

Through second and third wave feminism, women of color, especially black women, were incredibly prolific and developed multiple theories of gender that suggest that different people experience womanhood differently depending on their material conditions that are shaped by culture and class and race and sexuality, among other things. Their work has led to it being almost unanimous among feminists that womanhood is not some monolithic experience. With that belief as a fundamental precedent for all future feminist theorizing and belief, it's absolutely bizarre to me that radical feminists are challenging that transwomen "feel like a woman," because that suggests that they actually don't hold to the pluralism of women's experiences with womanhood and instead believe in biological essentialism. Some communities develop their identities as women through sex-based oppression, whereas others develop those identities through other common characteristics. If we can accept that there is no universal experience of womanhood, then why can't we entertain the idea that transwomen fit under that umbrella. This is why I think it's worthwhile to explore and interrogate the concept of what it feels like to be a woman, because I think there will be incredible variation based on material conditions. Some people will focus on adopting feminine characteristics, while others will focus on constructing an identity in opposition to men, while others will focus on different ideas. I think that's worth thinking about and challenging and struggling with, because those differences can be powerful and create solidarity.

The idea that some lesbian radical feminists have been discussing about how they're labelled transphobic for not wanting to have sex with someone with a penis is literally ridiculous. Same-sex attraction is literally not going anywhere and is not under threat. It's just not. I sincerely doubt any trans person will label you as transphobic because you don't want to have sex with them. Where are all these trans people who want to force you to have sex with them and be attracted to them? Where are they? If, and I mean IF, a transwoman wanted to force a cis lesbian to have sex with them, it would not be because they are transgender. It would be because they are a predator, and that is not an inherent quality. And assuming that transwomen are predators is bigotry. This whole issue is completely made up and isn't real.

Another idea is the concept of gender-neutral language coming from misogyny. This is ridiculous as well, because almost all gender-neutral language is for transmascs/transmen or non-binary/genderqueer people. People who don't identify as women, so why would they want to use women's terms for themselves? No one is telling you that you can't call yourself a mother, or you can't say breastfeeding, or whatever. They're asking you not to make assumptions about them, and not to force them to use terms they don't identify with.

Another thing I've seen floating around is the concept of forcing women to identify as cis and therefore be a "sub class of their own sex" which is disingenuous. The terms cis and trans are not necessarily elective identities that someone has to adopt and believe in and use. They are, from my perception, a way of describing and defining difference from a theoretical perspective that allows people to understand how lived experiences and identities might be guided by those characteristics. I don't foresee them being used in any meaningful way outside of spaces that are dedicated to issues of gender and sexuality. It's a theory of gender to describe social and biological differences. It's not an attempt to disenfranchise people who are assigned female at birth. And if you get offended because someone makes offhanded comments about hating cis people or people having cis privilege, just know that person doesn't actually have any institutional power with which to disenfranchise you, and there is no systemic support for them to fall back on.

Another concept that I've seen floating about is "women's spaces" and how transwomen are seeking to invade women's spaces and will make them "unsafe." There's a lot that I can say about women (or specifically lesbian) separatist ideologies, but the idea of a women's space is interesting to me because I don't know that I've ever experienced a woman's space. Even in feminist spaces, homosexual and bisexual men have been in those spaces, men of color have been in those spaces, and there have been explicit efforts to build solidarity across differences, in line with tenets of social justice that have some of their roots in black feminism. I don't even know what a woman's space is. If it is a conference where only women are allowed, then I would ask what kind of conference it is. If it is a conference about periods, or childbirth, or breastfeeding, or sexual assault, or pay gaps, or discrimination, or religious oppression, or whatever issue created by patriarchy, then I can see a lot of instances where the idea that those are women's spaces breaks down because of issues of class, race, and nationality. I think it's dishonest to say that transwomen can't be part of spaces that address these issues just because there are biological differences between us. I think there are a lot of assumptions being made about what transwomen want or what they seek to do, and assuming that transwomen want to be part of a discussion about breastfeeding because they want to dominate it with their own experiences is disingenuous. Feminist thought and belief is grounded in the value of the personal, in lived experience, and we can't grapple with the differences in lived experiences, then we have whole other issues going on. Multiple lived experiences can be shared, and assuming that one or two transwomen wanting to talk about their experiences is somehow erasing your own is just ridiculous in my opinion. In terms of the issue of safety, then I would say this. Rhetoric of safety has always devolved into fascistic action--if you look times and instances of fascism, they are almost all organized around something related to safety from a threat, and that threat is usually imagined. I would argue in favor of a brace space, not a safe space--a space where we can bring our vulnerability and bear witness to each other.

There are other issues that I have with radical feminism, especially with gender critical and gender abolition ideologies (which not all radical feminists hold), but I guess my point is that dwelling in the complexity of gender is amazing and beautiful and wonderful. There's power in difference, in seeking to recognize and embrace those differences, and in finding common ground. For me, that common ground is patriarchy, whether we call it cisheteropatriarchy or just patriarchy. The systematic control, disenfranchisement, and brutality relating to issues of gender and sexuality. Transwomen have no institutional power to wield against these theoretical women's spaces. None. Zero. Working against them is literally aligning with fascism and patriarchy. When all the trans people are forced into hiding for their own preservation, do you think the violence of patriarchy will stop there? Do you think patriarchy will suddenly think, "oh women's spaces are important. Gender equality between men and women is important."? If you do, then you're a fool. If you can't find it in yourself to have compassion for another person, if you can't find it in yourself to tie your survival to another person's, then the absolute least you can do is listen to them in order to eventually save your own skin. Because that is what patriarchy is coming for. They're currently scapegoating trans people, but they won't stop there.

Even if you can't understand someone else's experience, you should understand that you have a common oppressor and enemy. And I think that some radical feminists are being incredibly intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting this issue, and that dishonesty is leading to fearmongering, violence, and potential genocide for individuals who are also vulnerable to the tyranny of patriarchy.

[mogaimom]

So, since I’m still seeing this around MOGAI (and adjacent) spaces, here’s your friendly reminder that f*mboy is a transmisogynistic slur, and if you try to reclaim it as a TME, you’re being transmisogynistic.

There are plenty of other terms you can choose from to describe yourself as a feminine boy. Just to make it easy for you, here are some of the terms I know:

GNC

Femme

Feminec

Effemal

Lavender Boy

FINboy

Beauboy (for transmascs)

Rosboy

Roseusboy

Piuttoboy

Femitrans Boy (for trans people)

Syndeboy

Feel free to add on, but don’t try to to dispute this post if you’re TME. For once, can y’all just listen to transfems?

#ask to tag #trigger warning #content warning #transmisogyny tw #transmisogynistic slurs #discourse cw #negativity cw #terminology discussion #terms #not original #other references #not a flag #just text

[path-forbidden]

there's this really hilarious TWERF attempt to turn the stigma of being a TWERF against its source. Like a TWERF blog basically going "wow, taking medical abortion info from a terf and reposting it? sounds like terf rhetoric to me! block on sight, stay safe gaydies" in the notes, and praying nobody looks at her bio.

Someone sent me an anon in a similar vein, trying to pretend to be a Concerned Citizen. "they're going to abort male fetuses, it's so bad you boosted this evil terf rhetoric! Block on sight!". It's as convincing as a kid pretending not to be covered in cookie crumbs, but coming from grown women.

It centers every aspect of being a TERF that TERFs find most galling. They really do hate getting blocked on sight so much!

#TERF cw #transmisogyny discussion