#...no this isn't solely about trans men* and no this isn't saying that only trans men* are affected by this...

[uncanny-tranny]

In political spheres, I so often want to ask, "is what you're doing 'punching up,' or are they just an easily-available, acceptable target?"

#politics #because i find that it's oftentimes... not punching up #so often i see 'punching up' as 'whoever i can sink my claws into without being chastised' #and i think it's a fundamentally reactionary mindset to think 'who can i attack without recourse?' #it isn't punching up to the patriarchy to exclude and chastise trans men* for example... #...and too often people hyperfocus on the 'how does it make ME look?' to do this rather than on... #...who would be affected by their actions and what they advocate for... #...maybe it wouldn't make somebody look bad to say that trans men* for instance should be ran out of every space because it's 'punching up' #...but how exactly would that affect the marginalized group (being trans men*)... #....anyway that's an example i've seen (and experienced) of this in case it makes it clearer... #...no this isn't solely about trans men* and no this isn't saying that only trans men* are affected by this... #...it's something a lot of marginalized people both experience and may even perpetuate on individual levels... #...because it often feels GOOD to 'punch up'. you're told that it's 'showing them what's what' and maybe sometimes that's the case... #...but i've seen it too often where somebody is actively damaging a marginalized person/group as a means of 'punching up' #and that's why i ask... okay is this punching up or is it an attempt to gain control in a powerless situation through any means necessary?

[transbookoftheday]

🏳️‍⚧️🏴‍☠️ Trans Books To Read If You Love "Our Flag Means Death" 🏴‍☠️🏳️‍⚧️

Can't get enough of Our Flag Means Death? Read some trans pirate books!

On Mar León de la Rosa's sixteenth birthday, el Diablo comes calling. Mar is a transmasculine nonbinary teen pirate hiding a magical ability to manipulate fire and ice. But their magic isn't enough to reverse a wicked bargain made by their father, and now el Diablo has come to collect his payment: the soul of Mar's father and the entire crew of their ship. When Mar is miraculously rescued by the sole remaining pirate crew in the Caribbean, el Diablo returns to give them a choice: give up their soul to save their father by the harvest moon, or never see him again. The task is impossible - Mar refuses to make a bargain, and there's no way their magic is a match for el Diablo. Then Mar finds the most unlikely allies: Bas, an infuriatingly arrogant and handsome pirate - and the captain's son; and Dami, a gender-fluid demonio whose motives are never quite clear. For the first time in their life, Mar may have the courage to use their magic. It could be their only redemption - or it could mean certain death.

(The audiobook for "The Wicked Bargain" is narrated by Vico Ortiz!)

In a world divided by colonialism and threaded with magic, a desperate orphan turned pirate and a rebellious imperial lady find a connection on the high seas. Aboard the pirate ship Dove, Flora the girl takes on the identity of Florian the man to earn the respect and protection of the crew. For Flora, former starving urchin, the brutal life of a pirate is about survival: don’t trust, don’t stick out, and don’t feel. But on this voyage, Flora is drawn to the Lady Evelyn Hasegawa, who is headed to an arranged marriage she dreads. Flora doesn’t expect to be taken under Evelyn’s wing, and Evelyn doesn’t expect to find such a deep bond with the pirate Florian. Neither expects to fall in love. Soon the unlikely pair set in motion a wild escape that will free a captured mermaid (coveted for her blood) and involve the mysterious Pirate Supreme, an opportunistic witch, double agents, and the all-encompassing Sea herself. Deftly entwining swashbuckling action and quiet magic, Maggie Tokuda-Hall’s inventive debut novel conjures a diverse cast of characters seeking mastery over their fates while searching for answers to big questions about identity, power, and love.

The Lost Boys say that Peter Pan went back to England because of Wendy Darling, but Wendy is just an old life he left behind. Neverland is his real home. So when Peter returns to it after ten years in the real world, he's surprised to find a Neverland that no longer seems to need him. The only person who truly missed Peter is Captain James Hook, who is delighted to have his old rival back. But when a new war ignites between the Lost Boys and Hook's pirates, the ensuing bloodshed becomes all too real - and Peter's rivalry with Hook starts to blur into something far more complicated, sensual, and deadly.

In the Christian Republic, homosexual people are given two choices—a camp to "fix" them, or exile to the distant islands populated by lesbians and gay men. Sixteen-year-old Jason chooses exile and expects a hardscrabble life but instead finds a thriving, supportive community. While exploring his identity as a transgender boy he also discovers adventure: kraken attacks, naval battles, a flying island built by asexual people, and a daring escape involving glow-in-the-dark paint. He also has a desperate crush on Sky, a spirited buccaneer girl, but fear keeps him from expressing his feelings. When Jason and his companions discover the Republicans are planning a war of extermination, they rally the people of the Rainbow Islands to fight back. Shy, bookish Jason will have to find his inner courage or everything and everyone he loves will be lost forever.

Book titles:

The Wicked Bargain by Gabe Cole Novoa

The Mermaid, the Witch, and the Sea by Maggie Tokuda-Hall

Peter Darling by Austin Chant

Rainbow Islands by Devin Harnois

#the wicked bargain #gabe cole novoa #the mermaid the witch and the sea #maggie tokuda-hall #peter darling #austin chant #rainbow islands #devin harnois #nonbinary #bigender #transmasc #trans books #trans book of the day #queer books #pirate books #bookblr #booklr #our flag means death #ofmd #vico ortiz

[roachleakage]

I really have to emphasize that the concept of "trans (gender) is simultaneously whatever combination of genders I think gives them the most privilege" is not new, nor is it something that only affects trans men. People have tried to apply the concept of binary gender oppression every which way on trans identities, framing any gender that they think they can get to fit as the oppressor.

They'll claim that trans women have male privilege because of how they were (supposedly) raised. That nonbinary folk have privilege because they can (again, supposedly) just go back in the closet whenever it's convenient, and of course there's this shit about "trans men are equal in power and influence to cis men/women (depending on which we think privileges them the most)".

Every time this happens, it's born out of the misguided urge to treat trans identities as a binary. They are attempting to find a parallel to how cis identities are framed within feminism, complete with a unidirectional "oppressor/oppressed" relationship between genders.

The issue with this is that no trans gender is a social analog to a cis one. This isn't to say that trans people can't have binary genders comparable to cis people's, but unlike most cis people*, our genders are not automatically recognized, and as I've explained above, perceptions of our genders can change on a dime based solely on what the other party thinks will benefit them the most. Our access to the privileges we're constantly accused of having can vary dramatically, based on a multitude of factors that literally include "whether other people feel like being nice to us today".

*Being cis is not a guaranteed exemption from being denied your own gender, but it does often help.

#transphobia #transunity

[genderkoolaid]

oh okay. so when you say "marginalized people classed as masculine/men (even temporarily) can have their gender weaponize against them especially by privileged people classed as feminine/women, so it's important to be aware of how sexism/genderism against men et al is used by systems of oppression" you clearly hate women and are an MRA. but if you say "tme" and "tma" it's actually completely different and good gender analysis. 👍

the point of the screenshotted post itself isn't bad, it's just. annoying seeing very similar conversations take place around privileged victimhood vs marginalized predatorhood & gender. but apparently we can only discuss that in the sole context of transmisogny, and we can't connect how this treatment is consistently applied to anyone who can be gendered as male or masculine. when it comes to transmisogny/anti-transfemininity, we're not even suggesting thats solely why it happens– but ALL trans* people can get this treatment because we are seen as having the worst traits of both genders as a way of punishing us, and when we need to be portrayed as predators, they rely on sexist/genderist beliefs about men/masculinity.

#m.

[autogyne-redacted]

tbh, your recent post about transandrophobia synthesizes my thoughts about it very well, and im surprised you're getting backlash. the only additions i would make is that the gender/sex binary in the west was originally very explicitly a white supremacist creation, even down to the categories of male/female, and lionizing any aspect of that tends to get really racist really fast no matter how feminist or well intentioned. i guess you'd call me a trandandrobro bc i hang out in the tag and sometimes use the word for specific things (like when the lab threw out my cervical cancer test cells bc the cup was labelled M) but, i genuinely don't disagree with a single one of your points. i've been getting uncomfortable with the increasingly reactionary nature of the conversation on transandrophobia and i appreciate your take a lot.

Rambling about transandrophobia

Tbh It's been really surprising to see transandrophobia types interacting with that post all around.

And mostly it boils down to me having had windows into transandrophobia discourse that makes it seem bad*. And other ppl treating these aspects as exceptions to a discourse they see as basically good.

And I recognize that in part this is just how polarized internet discourses work. Like, if my windows into transandrophobia are largely when something egregious gets said and passed around in my circles, that's gonna give a way different impression then if ppl are part of the discourse and curating a slice they agree with.

And the consistent overall harassment of any attempt to talk about transmisogyny and constant bad faith engagements (eg attacks on agab and cagab language, cafab attempts to ID as trans women and as direct targets of transmisogyny) mean few of us are still in a position to assume good faith with internet strangers we run into who identify with a discourse that very much seems to have a massive transmisogyny problem.

.

My slightly more extended position on transandrophobia, since I've been thinking about it the past few days is:

1) I'm broadly supportive of ppl talking about their experiences and trying to find common ground even around shared ~privilege~, so long as it's done with a commitment to broader, collective liberation. (Eg cis men getting together from a feminist perspective to talk about patriarchy = good, cis men doing so with no specific opposition to normative masculinity = fashy).

2) the general attitude I've seen from transandrophobia world is to say: this has nothing to do with anyone other than trans mascs ppl other than trans mascs aren't welcome as part of this discourse: it's by us for us. Intentionally creating an insulated discourse especially around a point of (partial) privilege has a terrible track record. But regardless of relative positionality insulated discourses are just going to be more limited. They can create theory that's empowering for the creator group but it's probably not gonna get much mileage beyond and it's easy for it to be actively harmful.

3) I've thought for ages that trans masc experience seems ~under theorized~ and that transphobia is rly under theorized too. And it'd be really cool to see this addressed in a way that isn't rife with transmisogyny. It does seem like transandrophobia discourse is addressing a real hole, it's just doing in a way that rly sketches me out.

4) really I think gender discourse overall is just not in a great place rn. It was 1990 when Judith Butler questioned whether it makes sense for women to be the sole/primary subject of feminism, and we had major interventions that I'd say reached a peak in the early to mid 2010's (criticisms of white feminism, of cis feminism, intersectionality becoming a dominant framework).

There's a strong tendency to say that we're basically in a post gender world, or that race is just a more fundamental framework (which I strongly disagree with)** and I do think we really need a rebuilt gender theory that has teeth to it. Trying to build theory around transmisogyny I've found it necessary to do a lot of general theory building around gender. How normative masculinity and femininity work, how gender is policed. I don't think we're gonna be able to make a clean break from identity politics until we can have a strong theory framework that lets us talk about this shit from outside identity politics.

5) this is v rambly but I'm inclined to engage with transandrophobia discourse a little more than lots of my circles in part because I really want there to be more good theory building going on around gender, from different positions and across positions. One day, maybe.

*full of transmisogyny/denials of transmisogyny, trans masc exceptionalism and a failure to recognize and be in solidarity around shared issues with trans fems and cis men.

**getting back to the part of your ask about the history of gender and white supremacy, there's a huge entanglement between gender and race, gender and civilization. Normative gender differentiation has been a classic way the civilized set themselves apart from those they deem savage.

Broad claims like the one you make in your ask anon get messy tho. Like, a largely binary model of gender is older than history but you can also talk about the modern binary having really only come about over the past couple centuries (and obviously it's heavily contested and changing rn). Similarly you could say the modern concept of whiteness came about through the trans Atlantic slave trade (and then has been constantly shifting and getting redefined ever since) but there's obviously much older histories it's building off of.

I'm realizing now that maybe you meant the binary divide between sex vs gender as opposed to the male vs female binary but I can't tell which. Either way, my position here is mostly that it's really really messy to make big historical claims. It's such a high level view you can tell a lot of different stories with the available historical evidence. Ideas about gender and race have a heavily entangled history tho and it's certainly gonna go poorly if you treat either as natural.

#transandrophobia #discourse #gender #transmisogyny

[silverity]

"science says that human beings are either female or male" science is a tool used and defined by humans (and the societies/cultures they live in) to interpret the world around them. claiming "x is objective fact because Science Says So" is an extremely lazy argument (& implies that there is just one singular belief to be drawn from whatever is being researched in the first place). what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into "male" and "female"? who benefits from the enforcement of "male" and "female" categories? what traits do we ascribe to these categories and why?

im not claiming science is completely objective. as you've said, cultural biases can affect the way things are interpreted and understood. women know this more than anyone with the way biological essentialism has been used to define us as physically inferior and solely in existence only to reproduce. i'm also Black, and well aware of scientific racism and the history of pseudoscience claiming we are racially inferior on account of our skulls. so you really don't have to tell me anything about this.

what isn't a product of the biases of human culture or human society, however, is that humans are either one of the two sexes or a rare variation of the two. science is empirical observation, and we have observed this to be true, not just in humans but in other mammalian species. it's not a product of human society if it exists and is observable in nature. our interpretation and understanding of the two sexes, however, is what can become distorted through biases or misinterpretation. a good example being how scientists determined sperm in fertilization "conquers" the egg, but modern studies suggest the egg is actually extremely selective, and entraps/pulls the sperm inside. right? nobody can disagree humans don't reproduce via eggs and sperm. it's the interpretation of the process of it that is affected by cultural bias— particularly the assumption that anything female is inherently passive, and anything male must be active/aggressive.

"what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into male and female?".

most radfems, and a lot of marxfems such as myself, support gender abolition. sex, in our view, is a neutral thing that exists in nature and need not say anything about how you should behave or of your role in society. it is only through the social imposition of gender (which radfems define as a system of hierarchy of males over females and everything that reinforces this, not an innate identity as trans people would say) and it's maintenance via the enforcement of "femininity" (infantilization, sexualisation, submission) for women and of "masculinity" (aggression, control, dominance) for men, that certain traits, roles, behaviours are assigned to men and women. natural sex and it's observation through science do not assign any traits to the sexes. since humans have evolved to become civilized social beings we are no longer ruled by our animal instincts or natural biology.

so in relation to your latter questions, i think we are probably in agreement? we both disagree with the current social order of the sexes, but we disagree about how to eradicate this. the pro-trans side argues in favour of gender identity and the irrelevance of sex. but this doesn't really do away with gender stereotypes, does it? it just allows a few to switch to the opposite side of the gender binary. and making sex irrelevant (though, interestingly, "gender affirming care" is completely about mimicking biological sex markers associated with your "gender identity", so that's rather contradictory) would serve only to invisibilize women's oppression, which unfortunately occurs on a sexual basis. if you disagree that women's oppression is rooted in how men have sought to control and police women's reproduction and sexuality, please read some radical or marxist feminist theory.

the radfem side argues that treating gender as an "identity" in the trans way naturalizes the traits ascribed to the sexes as innate qualities to the sexes. womanhood is femininity, such that any feminine man or man who prefers feminine forms of expression is really a woman. & manhood is masculinity, such that any masculine women or women who wear their hair short are really men. this idea of "gender identity" also tries to pretend women are only oppressed because we adhere to femininity, so it's our own fault for not simply "opting out" of femininity and womanhood as "trans men" do. and when "trans women" present as feminine, they are oppressed just as women are. neither are true, when masculine-presenting women still face female oppression (including "trans men") and femininity (worn by the "trans woman") is only demeaned because the female body it is assigned to is demeaned. "trans women" may experience oppression bc of their gender non-conformity as males but never female oppression nor anything of female experiences.

the radfem position is that you can dress however you want and express yourself however you want, but on the basis of your sex you are still either a man or a woman. man = male human, woman = female human, that's all these terms should mean. we should stop gendering the sexes, essentially. we think gender dysphoria (as in genuine distress over your natural sex and a disconnect with your physical body) is a condition resulting from the oppressive system of gender that restricts both women and men, and think people should receive treatment, not affirmation. there's no issue with gender non-conformity, and if anything radfems encourage gnc especially where femininity is concerned, only that it is harmful to insist your gender non-conformity as a man makes you a woman. men are not the default of the species and women are not non-men, we are not an identity for men to claim when they feel repressed by other men or the standards of masculinity.

intersex people are the only people who may be assigned the wrong sex at birth, and i realise this is probably a very complicated experience for them and so im not really interested in policing what intersex people consider themselves. but most intersex people can still be defined as either male or female in terms of their biology (and so male intersex people should not enter women's sports, for example). the language of "AFAB/AMAB" has been bastardized and taken from the intersex community and applied to people who are NOT in any way intersex. for the rest of us our sex is not wrongly assigned, it is correctly observed.

in an ideal world sex should not be important beyond healthcare, sports, and other instances where it is necessary to take into account the physical differences between men and women e.g. for the safety of passengers in vehicles, which is commonly tested using only larger male measurements. while we still live in a society where women are oppressed on the basis of sex, it is necessary to recognise sex in order to combat this exploitation and inequality, via safeguarding women and female children, providing safe single-sex spaces (something the UN describes as essential in ensuring women have a right to public life), opportunities for women to boost our representation and participation in society, policies aimed at assisting women in male-dominated careers and so on. this is essentially the same thing as recognising the reality of race and how non-white people face disadvantages and discrimination. just as it would not help Black people to invisibilize the social reality of race (note the SCOTUS has just struck down affirmative action on the basis of race) it would not help women to invisibilize sex, nor the sexual dynamics (the threat and reality of sexual assault, abuse, sexual exploitation) that exist between men and women.

#well i took the time to respond in good faith so i hope this answers your questions #feminism #marxist feminism #radical feminism #radblr #read silvia federici #marxism #liberation of all oppressed peoples #original posts

[butch-gamedev]

Hi! I’m trying to get my bearings on the post about bimisogyny, and I want to know more on why/how it’s appropriating (copying?) the theoretical underpinnings of transmisogyny. Can you explain it more, or direct me to where I can learn about it? Feel free to say no, I just wanted to ask directly 👍🏼

(feel free to answer publicly or privately, either is fine)

So part of what's upsetting to me about the whole situation is that there's a significant corpus of *theory* surrounding transmisogyny, a great deal of analysis, and these attempts to equate things like "transandrophobia" and "bimisogyny" to it completely elide frameworks in what is very blatantly a game of equalization or minimization. Transandrophobia is a bit more blatant at this - attempting to set up an intersection of transphobia (real) and misandry (not, tragically), and with its proponents essentially openly using it as a point-scoring method against trans women (a fairly prominent proponent was outed as a serial abuser today, another recently instigated a fairly large outcry by feeling the need to draw over stats on violence against transgender people to suggest that it was undercounted against trans men but overcointed against trans women). I think most transfemimists rightly recognize that people who uphold "transandrophobia" as a legitimate axis of oppression are largely just reactionaries - it's true that trans men and trans women experience transphobia differently, but the idea that trans men have it worse is... unsubstantiated is a generous term. The sole function of the word seems to be as a method for transmascs to signal to each other their own transmisogyny.

"Bimisogyny" as a term I think is coming from a better place - bisexual women do, in fact, experience particularly heightened level of misogynistic violence. But... at the same time it's fairly clear that the coining of the word comes from a desire for equalization rather than the emergence of a real framework of understanding. The only substantive writing on the subject essentially gathers a bunch of statistics on the misogynistic violence bisexual women face, lists a couple patterns of fetishization and control from men, and throws its hands up. No motives or mechanisms are considered. This, combined with the author having a history of questionable analysis of politics surrounding sexual orientation in the past, kind of give the game away to me. If an actual understanding of bimisogyny had been set up or was being worked towards, the piece (and the general discourse surrounding it) would be centered on developing an understanding of why conditions are so dismal for bisexual women - who benefits from it, who enacts it, and how. This isn't to say that such a framework isn't needed, it's just to say that... as people use the word right now, it kind of explains nothing while trying to carry the same gravitas as transmisogyny. This is part of why people responding to me with "oh so bi women aren't allowed to talk about their oppression?" is grating because that's obviously not the function of using the term as things are now. I must also admit that the originating piece lingering overlong on anti-bisexual sentiment among lesbians and referring to "bi-exclusionary lesbians"... does not give much confidence either.

And one thing that's been glazed over is that understandings of transmisogyny aren't just "shit sucks for trans women, ergo we get a word", and even if I frankly have a lot of disagreements with the originating text, there is a great deal of insight on the cultural factors informing transmisogyny. Serano theorizes transmisogyny as the intersection of oppositional sexism (the belief that there are essentially two types of human being, split by reproductive capacity into two non-overlapping and distinct categories) and misogyny (the assertion of men's power through the negation of women). I don't even really agree with this reading - I tend to follow Wittig's stance that the establishment of sex categorization is itself necessary to facilitate misogyny and that sex is not in fact prior to misogyny but is constructed. I think Serano is a bit of a liberal, and naturalizes some things which are socially constructed as innate or predetermined. But the understanding that transmisogyny is rooted in the maintenance of sex as a system does hold water, and contemporary materialist feminists do consistently have apt analyses of transmisogyny through this lens (often centered around the positionality of transgender women as degendered women - women who are subjected to misogyny and misogynistic violence without the already flimsy defenses afforded to others through gender recognition). The narrative that transgender women are sexually threatening or gain benefits from supposed intrinsic maleness is itself used as justification to abuse us in a traditionally misogynistic manner. One thing that has been of particular interest to me is the tendency of non-female transgender people (generally trans men and trans-mascs) to leverage a female self-gendering willingly and temporarily for the sole purpose of gendering transgender women as male as a justification for dismissal, violence, or resentment. I think that this necessarily points to transmisogyny being useful as a tool not only for the construction of hegemonic male and female identity but also multiple transgender identities, but I don't want to get any further into the weeds right now.

[silicon-tmblr]

What are some Sexuality headcanons you have for danganronpa

Ohhhh I have so much to say you have no idea

I'll go with my DRV3 post-game headcanons because that's generally what I think about!

Shuichi: Disaster bi. I recently had the thought that he'd actually be awesome as nonbinary, but I feel like he's the type to realize that in his mid 30s or something

Kaito: Bigger disaster bi than Shuichi somehow. I like to think that, while he's iffy/confused about gay people, he accepts trans people without a thought (he's just like "oh you're actually a guy/girl! okay") and just demands that they "act like their gender" bahaha

Ryoma: I know this is a controversial thing to say but. Straight. cis/het. But he's like the biggest and nicest ally ever because well his entire friend group is very queer

Rantaro: I don't see this enough!!!! Aro/ace Rantaro!!! His love hotel is literally him being a tutor with no romantic or sexual undertones!!!! His character concept is probably "playboy with no interest in romance"!! But yeah aro/ace, romance and sex-repulsed

Gonta: Probably pan, but fairly heteronormative. I feel like he gets married in middle age because he's really not searching for a relationship for most of his life and more busy enjoying his hobbies!

Kokichi: Obviously very gay! I generally have him as a trans guy who, due to some shenanigans that happened in his childhood, thought he was a cis guy (until puberty hit and he had to figure out why he was freaking bleeding). Ironically, I like to call him "the cissest of cis guys" haha

Korekiyo: Ace! Not looking for a romantic relationship but I like to think he has a strong platonic partnership with Tenko

Keebo: Aro/ace, romance-positive and sex-neutral. He doesn't experience romantic or sexual attraction but is totally open to a romantic relationship. Intersex and he/him nonbinary, but he generally keeps it to himself and only tells people he trusts

Kirumi: Gay gay lesbian gay. She loves GL (Girl's love genre) but keeps it a secret

Himiko: Aromantic and bisexual! She tends more towards girls than guys

Maki: PSA Maki is gay and was straightwashed when they put her in Danganronpa 53. I mean, Tsumugi really said "I made you fall in love with a guy for plot!" I like to think Maki gets out of DRV3 and her first thought is "why was I straight" (for legal reasons this is a joke and bi Maki believers are based but. gay maki)

Tenko: Bi Tenko bi Tenko I KNOW people insist she's a lesbian (and you people are based) buuut I think even in Danganronpa Tenko is bi. People don't choose who they're attracted to, so her being raised to hate men doesn't mean she can't be attracted to them! Okay that's my ted talk about bi tenko

Tsumugi: Her orientation is none of your business (is what she will say, but I will expose her as the bisexual she is)

Angie: Pan! Kinda heteronormative but she learns not to be

Miu: Pan. I think she would meet someone on the internet that she clicks super well with and then they fly out to meet each other and get married

Kaede: Lesbian! So lesbian. I will insist forever that she isn't actually interested in Shuichi and is just super awkward around him because she doesn't want to lead him on when she's gay

That's it for V3! I don't have as many for the other games, mostly since I'm not as interested in or familiar with them (I like to joke that V3 has the gayest cast and everyone in DR2 is straight (obviously untrue, the irrefutable evidence: Nagito)), but here's a few I like:

Chiaki: Trans girl! She's also straight bahaha

Hiyoko: I used to think she'd be the type to act homophobic "as a joke" but then I realized she's super gay. She'd probably still act homophobic though

Nagito: Bi, for the sole reason of: I think he should date Chiaki

Akane: Seems ace!

Mahiru: I think she's straight, but she's a total lesbian magnet

Hajime: Bi (duh). Cursed to be maidenless

Chihiro: Nonbinary, he/they in conversation but always they/them in writing

Junko: This lady is very heterosexual and cisgender

Mukuro: Bi

Makoto: Bi

I also like to joke that all the girls in DR1 are straight and all the boys in DR1 are gay because everyone is in love with Makoto (obviously false because there are some very gay girls and not so gay dudes)

#danganronpa v3 #drv3 #danganronpa headcanons #shuichi saihara #kaito momota #ryoma hoshi #rantaro amami #gonta gokuhara #kokichi oma #korekiyo shinguji #keebo #kirumi tojo #himiko yumeno #maki harukawa #tenko chabashira #tsumugi shirogane #angie yonaga #miu iruma #kaede akamatsu #chiaki nanami #hiyoko saionji #nagito komaeda #akane owari #mahiru koizumi #hajime hinata #chihiro fujisaki #junko enoshima #mukuro ikusaba #makoto naegi

[talisidekick]

I got asked what the point of transitioning was if I wasn't going to date men ... three times now. Like these people were generally confused as to "... what's the point of becoming a woman if you're not into men?". As if transitioning is just about sex. All three of these people had self-identified as allies to me.

Explaining that transitioning in general is about being more myself, to align my social life and body with how my mind says it should be, was a mind boggling concept. And one of these people was queer and had the most push-back on the concept that I could go from living life as a straight man to a lesbian woman. As if by transitioning to a different gender would also transition my sexuality and romantic life to a different gender preference, that transitioning was a single straight man to straight woman or gay man to lesbian woman pipeline.

And the part that every one of these people was stuck on was sex. Even after explaining that I liked women and enbies before, and I like women and enbies now, all three were still stuck on "what's the point". Like ... I'm not a man. I don't identify as a man. Fundamentally my core being looks at all the infinite ways to be a man and goes: you're not that. And when I look at my pre-hrt photo's and early progress the immediate reaction isn't self recognition, and when it does click that that's me, my entire being goes: no. And to this day, 2 years in, still does that when I look in the mirror, though it's a bit better now. And still it took explaining it more than once to get it across that I'm not solely transitioning just to be a girl and have a vagina and get skewered by a guys penis. The concept that I might NOT medically transition that far, that I and others like me might keep the girly-as-fuck dick, that there's nothing in being transgender that says you have to get surgery, was just as baffling. That I'd be 1000% okay with girl dick and not guy dick (which I omitted the fact that I'm not repulsed by masculine and amab bodies, I'm just not romantically interested in dating guys.) kept getting me the "what's the difference?" question. The difference, for the record, is it's a girls or enbies dick. That matters to me and is fundamentally different.

It just really highlighted in that moment that some people, even allies, even queer allies, still look at trans people only in a sexual light. Maybe not fetishization exactly, but that transitioning is about sex and not a sense of self or personhood, which shouldn't be a thing because if being bi, gay, pan, etc isn't just about sex but being seen as a person no matter who you do or don't love and fuck and how, why would trans be any different? It kind of made me feel really gross after because all these people were allies and I was, prior to that conversation, just a woman for sex to all of them. I feel sick knowing that people, well intentioned, have the misconception that trans people are only transitioning for sex. I'm a woman in more ways than just my body. Trans people aren't just their bodies. Thinking otherwise is just erasing every fundamental part of a trans persons identity besides sexual activity. That's gross. We're people. Just because I can be sexual doesn't make that all that I am.

I get that transphobes promote that kind of thinking, but I just assumed everyone who was an ally knew that was horseshit. It's horrifying to see that I was very wrong in that assumption. That a single sexy photo is all someone will think I am as a person who's trans, and not the million other things that help make up my identity as a person.

#trans #transgender #talisidekick #talisidekick things #mtf #ftm

[kittyit]

Most online left x right debate are so devoid of nuances, to the point of being boring. Unfortunately, messing up the reality of what both ideologies support is very dangerous, it has real life consequences.

Speaking specially about women who think we have to allying with conservatives “to protect women, girls and children”, I have news for you: right-wingers don't give a single damn about women, girls and children. Some will try to counter this statement with “b-but the left...” and let me say this: as a socialist black radical feminist, I have felt lost many times in left spaces due to the blatantly misogyny/homophobia and also the tokenization of racism that is often assumed as “racism is taken more seriously than misogyny/homophobia” which isn't true in slightest but I have never thought that the right was the solution. Not because right = essentially bad and left = essentially good, if it was true, the blatantly misogyny, homophobia and racism in leftist spaces wouldn't hit so hard as it does, however they have an essential difference: right-wingers want to perpetuate a world full of inequality across class, race, sex, sexuality, nation, etc because they benefit from this social structure. The leftist goal, however is dismantling all the exploitation and oppression.

They're radically different, even though in the practice we see people advocating against things that oppress them, while wanting to keep things that benefit them. This is why I get upset with how brocialists talk passionately about how cruel is to take advantage of the lack of choice of economic vulnerable people but supporting the whole sex trade with the stupidest neoliberal rhetoric, it's because their class analysis is filled with male supremacist lengths and we should defy that, not supporting people who are already powerful and are not only using you feeling lost and hopeless in a fake agreement in positions that aren't even the same. The case is: it isn't socialism that is incompatible with feminism, it's sexism/homophobia/racism that is incompatible with socialism.

The root of conservative opposition to queer, trans and non-binary is purely homophobia and misogyny. Homosexuality is a threat to the male supremacist capitalism, since this system exist to control women's presumed reproductive capacity in order to get more workers who will keep the current system alive to the next generation of the oppressors.

They see trans people and queers as freakers and this treatment is reserved to feminists(even the male-centric ones), lesbians, gay men and bi people too. Why do y'all think conservative men react to our complaining about the misogyny of TRAs with a total mockery “We told you it would happen. It's all because you feminists wanted to destroy the natural order”. The “natural order” means the misogyny and homophobia feminists have been standing against since day one because it's the reason why we oppose to queer theory in the first place. Not because of hatred, not because we're “exclusionary” but because queer theory and practice are antifeminist, since they ignore/dismiss and in some aspects even support the existence of female oppression and fighting it is the solely reason why feminism exist.

And in all this mess, what is often forgotten is how queer theory and the classic right-wing sexism have a lot of more in common than radical feminism will ever be. Radical feminism can also crashes with queer theory in some points (surprise girlies!!!) and it still doesn't mean we all are the same.

i hope you'll make a blog and write some essays like this :)

#right collusion

[uncanny-tranny]

Quit being transphobic and adding the asterisk to make it say trans men* and trans women*. It's 2023. I thought we were past this.

This is probably about my post about trans women and trans men exchanging advice since it's been gaining traction, and I add the asterisk to signal that this isn't just about trans women and trans men. As somebody who isn't solely a trans man, it's weird to me that people have almost demanded that I just... ignore that, because it "isn't close to cisness." I added the asterisk for brevity and to signal that it's also about transfem people, transmasc people, transneutral people, genderqueers, genderfreaks, and whomever else I am not mentioning (memory loss gang, rise with me on this one).

Maybe you aren't a fan of how I indicated that difference (which is not what I have an issue with), but I truly do not appreciate being told that me acknowledging that trans men and trans women aren't the only people in this community is transphobic. If you aren't a fan of the asterisk, don't use it because that's completely neutral. But don't go after trans people who use it for literally non-transphobic reasons. Trans women and trans men are important members of the community, but they are not the only people who are trans in this space.

This will be my only response about this because I do think an explanation of my thought process in that post and posts like this would be helpful. But I'm drawing a firm boundary with how I'm talked to. This type of engagement is incredibly upsetting to me, and while I understand the aversion you may have to my language, I'm not going to be okay with being spoken to like this.

#ask #anon #trans #transgender #lgbt #lgbtq #ftm #mtf #nonbinary #transphobia #transphobia tw #wish it were more common on the internet to go 'could you explain [x]' instead of 'how DARE you do [x] for this reason i made up' #and maybe anon that isn't what you intended but i'm not sure how else to read this #i would understand your anger more if i didn't have a long track record of trying to be as sensitive about trans inclusion as possible #and i know i can be better about that! which is why i've been really fluid in my language and understanding of others #anyway being talked to like this is one of my firmest boundaries. definitely brings up terrible memories

[thorne1435]

that anon has absolutely lost their shit tbh. like i believe that transmisogyny exists and transmisandry doesn't, not that trans men dont face transphobia or that their transphobia isnt specifically about denying their manhood. but just that like. trans women are opressed because trans people are opressed. and then we also get opressed because women get oppressed. like men arent opressed solely on the basis of being men, they only get oppressed for being other things. transmascs do have some mild privilege over trans women on the same order that cis men have privilege over cis women. and theres like. violence from trans men towards trans women too. but its not some fucking conspiracy of evil people trying to brainwash people against trans women and for trans men it's just an emergent property of all the systematic oppression in society. when a trans man throws a trans woman under the bus and exposes her to life threatening violence he doesnt do that because hes evil or men are evil, he does that because we're higher on the shit list than he is and he will get rewarded by existing plainly visible power structures. its the lingua franca of our modern capitalist system: short term self interest. this is basic intersectionality we don't need a secret cabal to explain it. fuckin sorry for that bullshit

Hate to be that bitch but...men are oppressed on the basis of being men. Gender roles are inherently oppressive. If they're being expected of you, you're oppressed. It really is that simple.

Now, the depth of the oppression from each gender role does vary, but I think that where it lacks depth in one particular regard it makes up for in another.

I think that punishing deviants with ostracization is why gender roles are oppressive.

Look at it this way: one could argue that women are oppressed because they dared to step outside of the proverbial kitchen, right?

The problem is, when I say it like that, it sounds more misogynistic, because I imply that being in "the proverbial kitchen" is the inherent state of womanhood. And, to be fair, since that's at the heart of the traditional feminine gender ("homemakers") it's not an inaccurate thing to say, is it?

You didn't say it quite like that, though. You said "Men are oppressed for being something other than men."

Can you imagine the shitstorm if I had said "Feminist women are trying to be something else"? And I'd deserve it! That's misogyny. I think it sounds equally misandristic to say that men are only oppressed if they "try to be something else." It implies the same thing as my example above: that anyone dubbed "male" (whether assigned or assumed) must behave as the traditional masculine gender without deviation in order claim the title of Man.

The reason why men are oppressed for "being other things" is because those things are considered irreconcilable with the masculine gender, just like how strong women are oppressed for doing things that don't mesh with the feminine gender.

For example, "A 'real' man can't be gay."

Why not? Because, to be the object of sexual desire is not masculine. Men are the desirers, just like how women are the desired and so desiring isn't feminine enough.

It's all the same, just on the other side of the coin.

I don't think you necessarily meant it that way. Just be careful with your wording.

It takes effort to stop thinking of things in the misogynistic, misandristic ways we were raised to.

I have more to say, but this answer is long enough.

#i'll just reblog the ask and continue from there i guess #feminism #gender roles #patriarchy #misandry

[snaxle]

thank you for saying the truth about man hating ideology.

hating men isn't woke, and the only ones who'll care about it are the trans men you're going to hurt, idiots.

something also i think a lot of people seem to forget is that terf man hating rhetoric effects more than just men as well, and pretty much anyone can be negatively affected by it. which is why i think it's so dangerous when people confidently go around talking about how they think all men are gross and yucky while also supporting and/or being trans themselves. it's a bad mindset that unfortunately a lot of people fall into.

like im bigender, trans and a woman. pretty much all my life ive been negatively told by people that there's something wrong with me for dressing masculine, etc. one time i shaved all my hair off in support of a cancer charity and was bullied for looking too much like a boy, and that negatively affected my mindset for years and to this day im scared of having my hair shorter than my shoulders. i am not a man, nor do i consider myself a man but because other people perceived me as one they treated me like shit and it hurt a lot to know i was being treated differently than my peers solely for the reason that "ew boys/masculinity gross". (also. i dont even dress that "masculine". i literally just wear jeans and graphic t shirts and i guess that's Manly for people). there's other "ew gross you're a man😬" things ive encountered personally despite the fact that I Am Not A Man, which i won't get into because then i'll probably have to then talk about racism and how some white people perceive anyone who isnt white as inherently masculine, especially if they don't adhere to stereotypical feminine behaviour and appearances, but i can't be bothered to get into that right now.

this was not a good answer lmao sorry i had to get stuff off my chest

#asks #nyxofthedead

[rancidpancakebatter]

This Post is About BLM and Tyre Nichols so Buckle The Fuck Up

I am a black person. I come from a small, rural town with two stop lights run by a railroad tycoon and "footloose" university. (It's a Christian school and among their vast restrictions is a rule that you can't dance unless at a wedding- hence "footloose"). In my experience growing up, I was the only Black American I knew who wasn't adopted by a rich white family.

My father entered my life when I was thirteen. Before then I was being raised solely by my very gentrified Mexican mother. I knew that I was black but not because I recognised that identity. It was because that is how everyone labelled me. I was not Mexican, I was not white, I was black. Anytime I celebrated my heritage people would grow uncomfortable because why would a black kid speak Spanish? Why would they bring homemade tortillas to lunch? Why would they have a quiñceanera? You are black, act like it.

Since having my father in my life- having his influence, seeing our culture, not through the characterized lens in the media but his- I would say I feel black now. That identity now comes from me, not others. But unfortunately, that growth, that journey, is seen as irrelevant.

I first learned that I was black on the playground in the first grade. A little girl asked me why my hair looked "that way"? At the time I had an afro. I told her I didn't know, it wasn't something I had thought about. She continued to question my appearance: my nose, my lips, my skin. When I wore box braids, years later, for the first time I was chased around that same playground. The children pulled at them; they told me I looked like Medusa. They had created a game in which they would freeze anytime I looked at them. This applied at recess, in the gym, in art class, during lessons, at lunch, in the halls, etc.

That is a very minor form of racism spurred on more by ignorance than hatred, but I have suffered from hatred as well. What I mean to say is I am no stranger to racism. So when I say that as a citizen of the US, I am afraid, I don't say that lightly. I have been stopped randomly by police late at night. I have been unjustly blamed for an altercation just because I was there, so I must have "aggravated the situation."

But the fear I feel is not for me. At the end of the day, I am perceived as a weak woman and I am really good at "white-passing" with my language and mannerisms. However, my father isn't. And he shouldn't have to be. He dresses like a "stereotypical thug" with sagging pants, chains, and durags. He looks nice, I think he looks rather handsome, but I have watched WASP moms cross the street as we walk past them.

It doesn't matter that he is the sweetest man alive. It doesn't matter that he is so crazy in love with his wife and posts every craft she makes on Facebook to brag to all of his friends and family. It doesn't matter that he looks at me like I single-handedly hung every star in the sky. It doesn't matter that he asks for screenshots of my ios theme every week when I change it just so he can tell me it looks pretty. It doesn't matter that he still makes sure that he makes enough food for all of us and freezes my portion so I can have it when I visit. It doesn't matter that despite being a boomer he has a trans son and a queer, non-binary "daughter" that he loves and supports with everything in him. What matters is he's black, and he's dangerous.

Black men are killed every day in the US at the hands of cops. This upsets me of course, but it hurts me personally as well. How many others have nightmares where they get a call from their mother to tell them their father was killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? How many others see the headline "Cops killed another black man" and hold their breath as they scroll to see if it was their brother? How many others make sure to keep their hands in their jeans pockets and their hood off so they don't look as threatening. How many others were taught what to do when pulled over in a car before they learned how to turn the car on? How many others live in this reality?

I see the conversation around Tyre Nichols and it breaks my heart. He was nine years my senior with a wife and child. He was active in his community. He liked to skateboard. He was a lot like me. And he was brutally beaten and murdered. That's insane. That could have been me. That could have been my brother, or his. It could have been my father. And my heart breaks for his family. I respect them for the spotlight they are taking. The justice that they are demanding.

Recently one of his family members posted a video of him. They said that when the body cam footage was released that it was going to circulate. That his death was going to circulate. And they wanted to share a video of him living. And I think that's really beautiful. Often times we get swept up in our anger, our fear, and we forget momentarily that their life was not just this one instance. Tyre Nichols existed before this.

I will always be afraid of when I will have to do the same thing. When I will have to beg people to remember that my father, my brother, were so much more than just victims. My father is a chef, he is a kind neighbour, he is an amateur gardener. My brother is loved, doing well in his transition, a shoulder to cry on, and the life of the party. They are such beautiful and important people.

So, I beg you. Be angry. Protest. Riot. Make your voice heard. Help this family try and right a wrong that can never be brought to true justice. But don't forget who they're fighting for. Say his name. But also share his story. Not just the ending.

#black lives matter #black lives have always mattered #black lives have value #black lives are human lives #black lives count #black lives are precious #black lives are beautiful #black lives are important #black lives are beloved #tyre nichols

[crafty-butch]

my actual favorite thing about That Post is the way [redacted]s will show up like "how DARE you say we're stupid" and then whip out the most "if gravity exists, how do airplanes fly?" level of (i use this term loosely) analysis

"if patriarchy isn't solely about biology, how can women be oppressed?" idk consider reading about other forms of oppression that also don't have a purely biological basis, like, say, literally all of them

"if trans women are women and trans men are men, how can abortion be an issue of misogyny?" because things can be motivated by/rooted in misogyny even if they won't always affect all women or only women

etc etc

like legitimately if you think these are gotchas i think you might just be dumb

#continues swinging bats at hornets nest

[kitausuret]

Harry Osborn/Flash Thompson Fic Recs

(Harry and Flash at Flash's birthday, Amazing Spider-Man #789; Slott & Immonen)

After writing my own HarryFlash fic, and also at the request of a friend, I realized it might be a good idea to recommend a few of my favorites I've come across! It's a small ship but one I've become very fond of. Full disclosure, I haven't read everything out there, and if anyone has any recommendations, feel free to add them on! But here's what I've found on Ao3 and am happy to pass on.

As always, heed the tags and summaries, and have fun! Remember to kudos and comment!

Got to Believe It's Worth It - by turnofthesentry (1k, T+) - 616

Short, sweet, a little sad, a little smutty (mostly vague/suggestive). Set right before Flash ships off for active duty. I love this one even though it hurts my heart a lot. Bonus, there's a comic adaptation by @oliveroctavius which you can find right here!

Not a Math but a Science - by turnofthesentry (1k, Gen) - 616

So this one isn't solely HarryFlash, it's more like Harry pining for everyone, but it's a beautiful 4+1 fic (4 kisses Harry wanted, and 1 he got) and the bit for Flash is very sweet. I'm feelings.

phone calls - by kingdavidbowie (~2k, T+) - TASM

I think this might be a sequel to hallway by the same author, but I liked this one in particular because of its blending with some things from comics canon, especially for Flash. It's a little sad but they are sweet boys...

had they not been interrupted - by softgrungeprophet (1k, Explicit) - 616-esque-ish

trans!Flash? trans!Flash! Nadia wrote this wonderful little fic as part of their series..es..? where Flash is a trans girl. This one is a personal favorite, Harry is very good and very sweet to her.

better there than perfect - by blue_bees (2.5k, Gen) - 616

I really like this one because it's from the roommates era!! (oh my god, they were roommates) It's sweet and a little bit sad in parts but what good Coffee Bean ship isn't.

"The ladies dig a man in uniform." - by blue_bees (4k, T+) - 616

My favorite thing about this fic is how definitively it is set in the silver age of comics - Oli talks a lot on his blog about the importance of historical context with comics, and I love the way he uses that in this fic. It also makes it a little sad, of course (queer men in the sixties, and all) but god, it's so good. Also, getting frisky in a car is fun.

I hear the soft sigh of his inhale - by softgrungeprophet (9k, T+) - 616

This one's just plain fun. And look at that word count! It's inspired by the Spidey newspaper strip, which had a little B plot (or maybe more like a C plot) about Harry and Flash running a roller disco. This tick-marks a lot of my favorite things to see in fics, like the whole supporting cast. There are so many characters in this one!! It's fun! There's a scene that takes place during Halloween! It's got DAD!HARRY! There's also a lovely drawing by Oli at the bottom.

Cover Me In Bruises - by BlueCrowAnxiety (12k, Explicit, Incomplete [currently at ch. 10]) - Raimiverse

Let me preface this by saying I am not that into Raimi!Spider-Man, but I know there are a lot of Raimi fans out there and this is from what I've seen the only fic that falls into that category. I know from their other fics that Blue has a good knowledge of comics canon and that shines through here and there in this fic. I'd never considered HarryFlash in that universe before this one! It's neat!

Learn to Let it Show - by Kitausuret (2k, Gen) - 616

Not to toot my own horn, but I did just publish my very own HarryFlash fic last night. It's set after Venom: Space Knight because I like Flash as Venom and dad!Harry.

I hope you have fun with these suggestions! If anyone knows of any outside ao3 or that I missed, for sure feel free to add them.

#fic recs #harryflash #harry osborn #flash thompson