#and no i dont think that means lesbian = basically just women but it does subconsciously in plenty of yalls minds. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yuri-for-businesswomen · 4 months

Text

i met with a good friend yesterday and it was really nice but something is bothering me and i wish it didnt.

so she has started to call herself a „queer feminist“. she kept talking about „queer“ this and „queer“ that and at some point talked about reading a „queer“ book. thats when i interjected and said what does queer mean? this tells me nothing. is it about a trans male experience, about a lesbian woman, this doesnt mean anything (turned out to be about a bisexual woman which is why she related which she probably wouldnt have if it was about a different type of „queer“ person). so i go on saying thats why i find the term useless. she says she finds it a useful umbrella term and i say umbrella for what? she says „what if for example a woman dates a nonbinary person?“ im like well it depends if the person is male or female since sexuality is still based on sex. what do i as a bisexual woman have in common with a straight man who thinks he‘s a woman? i dont see us as part of the same group. and while she wasnt able to explain the usefulness of the term she said she would keep using it. out of principle i guess.

and it frustrates me because she like many other women is an intelligent and reflected woman whose opinion matters to me but she seems to mindlessly parrot whats popular right now which makes me take her opinion on feminism a lot less serious. how are you a feminist but you think one can identify in and out of womanhood? who are womens rights for then? people who identify as women or people who are women? at the end of the day, if you think women can stop being women under certain conditions, i just dont know how you are helping the liberation of women.

i just cant take people seriously who earnestly use nothing terms like „queer“ and „nonbinary“ and who think me an extremist for not pretending the person we both know is a woman is a „nonbinary person“. it doesnt seem like she has thought about why its predominantly women identifying as nonbinary, and what background these people have (we live in a very liberal city and shes doing her masters in a program and at a university that is breathing queer theory). its like a virus, smart women suddenly regurgitating and internalising all this seemingly without ever considering the implications and consequences. and it creates a distance between women like my friend and i who definitely share a value system but i refuse to pretend and just accept.

she doesnt even know theres many lesbian, gay, bisexual and even trans people who dont consider themselves „queer“. „queer“ is its own community and NOT an umbrella term for same sex attracted or gender dysphoric people (who are already not a coherent group). depending who you ask, asexuals and intersex people are also included. which basically makes „queer“ another term for „different“ (which is its original meaning completely lost here because we are in germany and only use queer in this context).

and since we had debates in the past i already know where it will go when we talk about it. she considers me to be extreme anyways so we will start with her wanting to reject my opinion. it will end with her saying „i cant argue with that (my arguments) but i still disagree“ because its so scary to start questioning all that while youre in these super „queer“ environments.

#personal

108 notes · View notes

ftmtftm · 5 months

Note

something i wanted to ask, genuinely, is if you think the labels transmisogyny/misandry and the way theyre used can really be helpful

i personally think they can be but with how so many ppl try to frame it as "exclusive" forms of oppression just doesnt help at all. yes, transmisogyny does mainly happen to trans women/fems, but a lot of ppl refuse to believe it could also happen to trans men/mascs. and i believe it can go the same way with transmisandry as ive seen multiple ppl describe wut it is and see how it could be applied to trans women/fems. and that doesnt even acknowledge intersex ppl, whether theyre trans or not. i feel like labeling it in specific ways to say "this is an intersection of oppression" without going "this is an exclusive experience" is beneficial to all sides, but ppl try to gatekeep with labels like "tma" and "tme" and so on. its like saying a gay guy cant call themself a dyke bc "youre not a lesbian and therefore u cant reclaim that slur" even if theyve been called a dyke before. it really just feels like the labels of transmisogyny and transmisandry is used as a way to fuel the fires of oppression olympics by saying that "if ur a trans man u experience less oppression than a trans woman." and it seems to be mainly fueled by the idea of "woman (oppressed) + trans (oppressed) = really oppressed" whereas "man (not oppressed) + trans (oppressed) = not as oppressed" when its nothing like that.

its also incredibly hard to find Any information about transmisandry. i always see "trans men just have it/pass easier" and even other transphobic statements of how going on T makes trans men more aggressive and assertive. i feel like tumblr has been the only place ive seen any genuine discussion about transmisandry and even then its not great or very informative.

i believe that both transmisandry and transmisogyny should be acknowledged as real forms of oppression rather than being used as a way to oppress ppl further.

i dont wish to cause an argument as these r just my thoughts and i genuinely want to hear yours on it too

So the TL;DR my opinion sort of boils down to "Yes, I think they can be incredibly useful terms when used with intention and clarity of purpose" but there's a lot of nuance to that opinion. Basically though - I mostly agree with you on a conceptual level anon. I just wanted to write an essay.

(and also I don't fully address some things in this ask because frankly I'm burnt out and don't want to talk about them at the moment and I made this blog to talk about my special interests anyway. Sue me ‪¯\_(ツ)_/¯‬)

Something I've been noticing in my reading of Intersectional/trans-inclusive Feminist literature, combined with my engagement with trans activism, over the last few years is: We're all very, very afraid of talking about sexism right now and it absolutely makes sense why.

It makes sense because the conversation has been ground to dirt by TERFs constantly yelling about "sex-based oppression" as a means to be transmisogynist and degrade the womanhood of trans women. However the response to this has been deeply flawed in my opinion.

Instead of actually addressing sexism as it's own distinct form of oppression under an Intersectional lense, we've simply made a hard left into only discussing gender informed oppression and only legitimizing gender informed oppression in the form of misogyny. It's a very uninformed response in my opinion actually - but that also makes sense because it's currently very hard to be informed on general feminist theory and politics at the moment because Radical Feminism is a fucking plague.

In reality though, sexism and misogyny are two different forms of oppression that often overlap because gender and sex are different classes of identity that often overlap.

This degradation of language - both from TERFs conflating sex and gender and from Intersectionals/progressives separating the two so hard they don't even acknowledge sex - is what I think is part of the cause of this problem that is leaving trans men / trans mascs with a massive hole in our ability to discuss our experiences. And not just trans men either!!! It's also nonbinary and intersex people as well who are harmed by this void.

So that begs the question: How do we actually talk about sexism in an Intersectional Feminist, trans inclusive, capacity that combats Radical Feminist rhetoric on sexism?

And the answer? Is carefully, consciously, and in a manner that is aware of several different experiences within the nebulous concept of female identity.

I will actually be using the word "female" as a term a decent amount throughout this post. For the sake of this discussion I am defining "female" as anyone anyone who presently identifies as female due to their assigned sex as well as anyone who is socially treated/viewed as female due to their gender, legal, and/or medical statuses. In this post "female" is an umbrella term that includes cis women, trans men, trans women, nonbinary people, and intersex people who feel that definition applies to them in relation to their sex.

Because the fact of the matter is that Patriarchy and our society at large hate women and they hate people who are assigned female and they hate people who are female and those are distinct categories of people with a lot of overlap and a lot of differences.

Female identity is like venn diagram of sex informed experiences that cis women, trans women, trans men, nonbinary people, and intersex people all have a place in for various different reasons. It's a diverse category of experiences and this should be a touchstone for solidarity, not division in my opinion. The experiences and needs of one group don't inherently negate the experiences and needs of another similar group, even if they conflict, you know?

It's a concept I've actually adopted from disability activists, who often talk about the ways in which disability activism often has to address conflicting needs because sometimes some disabled people's needs are in direct conflict with each other!! Conflicting needs are not something unique to disability activism though.

Most groups and classes people have conflicting needs within themselves and I think there's a lot to be learned in gendered activism from disability activists in this regard. I think often in activist discussions a lot of people stop when situations stop impacting them directly instead of trying to find commonality and empathy with similar experiences. It's easy to have knee jerk reactions, it's harder to pause and contemplate.

So, let's actually contemplate transmisogyny and transandrophobia/transmisandry as terms for a moment.

Transmisogyny was coined as a term by Julia Serano in 2007 in her book The Whipping Girl and I do think it's incredibly useful for describing the ways in which transphobia (the broader oppression of trans individuals) intersects with misogyny (the broader oppression of women) in specific ways wrapped up into a specific term.

I've engaged in a lot of criticism of The Whipping Girl because, well, I think for just about every excellent idea Serano posits about the trans feminine experience she undercuts it with White Feminist rhetoric and simple "cis men and women are opposites therefore trans men and women are opposites" type rhetoric that harms her arguments more than helps them. HOWEVER! Serano herself even articulates that misogyny and transphobia may intersect in ways that impact nonbinary and trans masculine individuals differently from trans feminine individuals, and that additional language may be required to fill that gap in The Whipping Girl!!

So now there's a bit of a linguistically philosophical discussion to be had here on the function of language and what language we can actually use to fill the hole trans men experience with our language - which is also where we dive back into talking about concepts like conflicting needs and sexism.

When creating terminology (or jargon), one must take into account several things like clarity and context, which is why personally - I do not like the term "transmisandry" at all. I use it as a tag because I know some people prefer it as a term and I'd like my posts to reach that audience as well. Generally speaking though - I think any inclusion of "misandry" as a term will always be a nonstarter in most discussions on gender. It's much too loaded of a word because of it's association with the misogynistic actions of MRAs among several other semantic reasons.

An argument could, I think, be made for a term like "transsexism" which would describe the intersection of transphobia (the broader oppression of trans individuals) and sexism (the broader oppression of female individuals) but I think that is still too broad if we want to talk about trans masculine experiences specifically. (Though I do still think it may have contextual use as a term quite frankly - that's just beyond the scope of this post).

So? Then we come to transandrophobia and a conversation on misogynistic, sexist responses to masculinity in people society forcibly identified as "female women" under patriarchy.

I want to state that off the bat that I take a lot of issue with the way people dismiss trans men's experiences as just "general transphobia" or "default transphobia" because... Why are you automatically treating a man's experiences as the universal default? Especially when there are things based on the intersection of his manhood and marginalization that he experiences that women of the same marginalization don't?

I have this issue with most other conversations about the intersection of marginalized identity and manhood honestly. It actually really reeks of unconscious misogynist bias to me. But I digress, that's not the subject of this post.

I think a lot about Brandon Teena and the motivations for his murder. I think a lot about Lou Sullivan's diary entries about his loneliness and isolation with regard to being around trans women and lesbians - as well as his history fighting for his right to medical transition. I think about P. Carl's musings about the ways in which his entire community abandoned him once he came out as a trans man as opposed to a lesbian woman. I think about Irreversible Damage by Abigal Shrier and the way she manipulated - if I'm remembering correctly - YouTuber, Chase Ross into misleading interviews that skewed his words and stories to attempt to "prove" her points about how "our girls" are being manipulated into transgenderism via social contagion spread through platforms like YouTube.

I think about the ways in which trans mascs - particularly those on HRT - actively avoid medical care because of the deeply gendered nature of gynecological care and also because we are treated like medical freaks and abominations when we do try to seek that care. I think about the ways our bodies are inherently, deeply impacted by the overturning of Roe V. Wade and how our decisions to not carry children via abortion or hysterectomy - or our desire to carry children - are met with the phenomenon of medical misogyny like any other woman or female individual but in a way that also explicitly intersects with our transness.

I think about the ways in which Patriarchal society sees my "female" body in direct opposition to my identity as a "man" and how that is something that needs to be "corrected" back into "female womanhood" via rape and assault. I think about my own corrective assault a lot. I think about how the 2015 National Trans Survey actually found higher self reported instances with sexual assault in trans men than in trans women. I think about how I personally see that as a touchstone of solidarity with my lesbian siblings and especially with my other butch siblings who also have their expressions of masculinity treated as deviancy that deserves corrective action.

I apologize for diverting into less of an academic musing into prose and also for diverging from the subject of this ask directly into a much larger essay - but I am simply so tired of trying to say that I and other trans masculine people are people worthy of having our own language for our own experiences instead of just being dismissed as a privileged class - quite literally on the basis of our own oppression.

Especially when people use the words of someone like Julia Serano to say we don't deserve that language when she herself posited that maybe we should have it. Especially when Kimberlé Crenshaw - the woman who created the theory of Intersectionality that Serano is attempting to engage with in The Whipping Girl - has stated that one of the goals of Intersectionality is to create language for and give voice to marginalized identities that otherwise are not given language and voice.

So - What do you call it when trans masculine people are explicitly targeted on the basis of their trans masculinity? What do you call that intersection of sexism, misogyny, and transphobia that misgenders and attacks trans masculinity explicitly? Because that isn't "general transphobia" - that is transphobia motivated by a Patriarchal desire for control over the broader "female identity" that society is seeing as "too masculine".

It's trans-andro-phobia. Transphobia targeted at a particular group of trans individuals on the basis of their masculinity in a way that intersects with a sexist, misogynist, Patriarchal desire to control perceived/forced female identity and the subsequent interpersonal and social ramifications that come alongside that systemic abuse.

Focus, intention, and clarity of purpose.

---

I do want to add that there is absolutely something to be said about the fact that these conversations are all extremely White at the moment.

Radical Feminism is a deeply White (and White Supremacist) movement. Conversations on Trans Feminist theory in general are still deeply White as well. Julia Serano is very much a White Trans Feminist, and as such most responses to her work by other White trans people tend to be, well, very White.

I myself am even contributing to the prevalence of Whiteness in the conversation because even though I am Ashkenazi I am also still White. I might be informed by and am actively using concepts formed by Black Women and Ethnic Minority Women as the basis of my own theories, but that doesn't erase the context of my own race in this conversation either.

I really do not want that to be lost upon people, especially other White people. A racialized context matters in this conversation because Race and Gender really cannot be fully separated from each other in conversations about power and systemic oppression.

Bonus TL;DR - Read The Will to Change and Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks. Read Audre Lorde. Read Kimberlé Crenshaw. Read Leslie Feinberg and Judith Butler. Read María Lugones. Learn the concepts they are presenting and then also learn how to apply those concepts in a consciousness and self aware manner.

#this isn't perfectly everything i wanted to articulate but i'm tired of this sitting in my drafts #especially when i'm getting really burnt out on offering this kind of essay for free with my main responses to them being sui bait anons #or parasocial bullshit #transmisandry #anti transmasculinity #transandrophobia #transmisogyny #intersectional feminism #feminism #anon #long post /#asks

82 notes · View notes

teddie-bear420 · 3 months

Text

tier list

OPINONS UNDER THE CUT

warning this is super long and ranty but does have some silly doodles ill post else where :)

-teddie bear 420

I have had several dreams about vaggie and lute and alastor, they plage my every waking moment. one was me going to smooch city with alastor (very scary that man does not wash his teeth). the others vaggie just shows up sometimes

really liked vaggie in her angel flash back, her hair cut was so cute, not a fan she still has pink eye but what eves. I LOVE HER PONY TAIL THO, give my girl better hair styles!!!

do you think theyve explored each others bodies?

I hated lute at first cuz, just look at her. you could get snow blindness with how white that woman is oh my lord. but once the 8th episode rolled around with hot women fighting my brain kinda clicked on for our old second in command. i keep going back to her in my brain and slowly morphing her into a heart broken lesbian who has a superiority complex and bullies her crush and then moves on to having a sugar mama situation ship with Lilith.

alastor is just so fun and silly, and there's this one x reader fic that ive made fan art of, you've all seen it. i just love this guy but i like to imagine he's a woman just for me :)

i understand why he is a fan favorite

i love charlies look but i hate how childish she is, like girl you are like 24 kill your friends pimp. nifty molly emily are all so cute and i enjoy looking at them. cant wait for the nifty episode (delusional)

i do love nifty more than the rest of these ones tho. i see lots of folks talking about how nifty is alastors daughter or angel dusts little baby daughter SHUT UP

SHES 25 YEARS OLD AND MURDERED HER HUSBAND IN HER SLEEP. NIFTY CALLED ALASTOR OVER TO HAVE THEIR LUNCH DATE AND HIDE THE BODY!!!

OK maybe nifty lives in my dreams too

do you think theyve explored each others bodies?

mimzy makes me mad cuz the show hated having her there clearly, like why is she the only fat person in hell. dont worry girl, I'll appreciate you once again i have to make alastor a dyke for my own sanity

do you think they-

lilith and rosie are good to look at, i like how rosie talks and her showtunes, god i love her show tunes. pentious is the only yellow dude in hell. velvete looks like ass most of the time but I LOVE A BAD BITCH

like i said, no strong feelings

ok most of these dudes are too ugly or too annoying and i hate when they are on screen, lucifers pants are his skin, angel dust has the worst fashoin sense ever UGHS I HATE HIM WHERE ARE HIS TITS WAAAAAA

also i love that her name is sarah, thats such a basic name, like i can type alastor x reader and theres a bunch of results but if i typed sarah x reader, shes no where :(

also shes got that mlp horse face going on i love it

i despise carmilla carmine, i hate her dumb horns, i hate her unnamed daughters, i hate her skirt, i hate her song, i hate her blazed ass eyes, i hate her long hair

vox just looks bad i cant lie

OK ADUM MAKES ME SO MAD HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN JACK BLACK WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN HIM BEING A FAT BASTARD CUZ I WAS CONVINCED HE WAS ANOTHER SKINNY TWINK also i am an anti shipper when it comes to adum x lute cuz that shit is weaaaak. he is so mean to her and not in a hot way, adum is some incel and lute is a goddess

yeah, #adumisoverparty 2024 the most divorced man in heaven

i can not wait for season two dude, im so pumped

#teddz stuff #hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel critical #alastor #vaggie #nifty hazbin hotel #angel dust #hazbin hotel husk

53 notes · View notes

cruelsister-moved2 · 10 months

Note

Feeling deeply uncomfortable rn with how trans men act like they're entitled to be lesbians by virtue of "the afab experience" or whatever and use the most transmisogynistic rhetoric imaginable to justify themselves but the second you even try to point out these transmisogynistic premises they claim it's "terfy" to criticize them and call you a stupid bitch for not being "queer and complex" enough to be/fuck a man

yeppppp and it's funny because like im not saying trans men have no experience of what misogyny feels like or anything so I feel like it really shows that misogyny is not just some failure of empathy where how women want to/should be treated is just so mystical and subtle that cis guys can't help it, but very much like a (often double edged) sword that they will choose to pick up if it benefits them!! not only are the "female socialisation" implications of the whole thing super transmisogynistic, they're also basically excusing cis men from culpability and making misogyny into a biological trait 😭

like I think there's something to be said for the structural function of misogyny and the fact that hearing 'women are worth less' is different if you dont identify as the object of that claim EVEN IF the person saying it thinks you do. to me its inherently misogynistic when they reduce what women's and lesbian's experiences are like and assuming the parts you identify with are the extent of it rather than the very tip of the iceberg. and the weaponisation of terms designed to talk about women's oppression like saying its "terfy" to point our their transmisogyny or claiming that lesbians having any boundaries around men is bioessentialism and so on. like its redefining the parameters of conversation around men at every stage.

like it's interesting that a lot of their defenses are like. well I had [xyz experience with misogyny] and people call me a dyke sometimes!!! but what the hell does that matter when ur just resorting to. I mean sometimes almost word for word mra talking points. it's ultimately not even relevant when you're purposefully choosing misogyny as a tool to get what you want & then deploying it against lesbians and trans women i.e women who wont be able to like assert social dominance on the basis of you being trans.

#ask #anon #sorry I realise I always address my posts to the ppl pissing me off in second person idk why.#but obviously I don't mean YOU anon #like i actually don't gaf about your personal feelings about misogyny when you clearly know full well #how exacrly to use it to get what you want as soon as it suits you #if u have experiences w misogyny that just says u must be being more intentional abt what ur doing lol

33 notes · View notes

bananasbyler · 2 years

Text

I keep seeing people recently say that Mike is bi and that’s fine.

But counterpoint: gay.

There’s too much evidence that Mike is actually gay instead of bi. He’s basically latched on to El upon knowing her for only a week. The look he gives El at the end of s3 when he kisses him.... just.... makes me believe otherwise, y’know? There’s many posts that prove that Mike is gay and people should give it a read!! I can’t list them all because this post would go on forever. It’d be great if Mike was bi, but it also just goes with an overused trope of a man that’s had a previous relationship with a woman HAS to be bi or pan or such. And that’s just not accurate. Many gay men have had relationships with women or have had a “beard” (LGBTQ+ term for those who don’t know).

Too many of these harmful stigmas have been going around with fans or fandoms. “Pan people are promiscuous and want to have threesomes and sex OR always happy and friendly to everyone” “Lesbians are mean and hate men” “Gay men have to only have had relationships with men or no relationships at all” “Bi people are overly flirty and have a love triangle” “Asexuals have no emotion or haven’t had any relationships or sex ever” “Trans people have to look feminine/masculine to be trans” “non-binary people have to look androgynous”—The list goes on.

This is why many people headcanon Dustin or El to be pan (Dustin’s bubbly nature and El’s sometimes doe-like or innocent character), Max to be lesbian (Max’s general mean demeanor around Mike and Lucas and her friendly side to El), Max or Mike to be bi (Max’s and Mike’s love triangles) , Dustin to be asexual (mostly pre-s3 bc Dustin didn’t have a relationship), and so on. These are just the popular headcanons/theories. I didn’t include Will because I consider him as canon gay. Also, didn’t use the adults or young adults because that’s where it gets messy. Also, you can still have these headcanones/theories, that’s fine!!

But, why has nobody proposed that Mike could be pan? Because they’re following those tropes and stigmas to lead to the conclusion that he must be bi. Why dont people wonder if Mike could be asexual? The same thing!!

Because he doesn’t follow the tropes/stigmas. Just because he’s had a relationship with a woman does not mean he isn’t gay. So please, before you base your theory on this, think about if it’s based purely on stigmas or not. This is not to dismiss those theories in particular, just sharing thoughts. ALSO: I am in no way trying to deny the existence of bi men or trying to exclude them!!

Personally, I ALSO want Mike to be gay so we can break this trope in media. Just because I believe that he’s gay does not mean that I’m trying to dismiss bi people. AT ALL!!

- RR

#if you want references of where else this has happened #I’ll reblog this and make a list #this is the most I’ve written on a post #it needed to be said though #bc yeah #anyway #mike is gay #mike is bi #byler s4 #mike wheeler #will byers #byler #michael wheeler #william byers #stranger things #stranger things s4 #mike is fr gay tho

190 notes · View notes

a-dumbass-jester · 8 months

Text

Hi!! So I saw barbie for the third time recently so of course I made a yttd (dummies) au with it!

Also there will be Barbie spoilers but not like plot spoilers this is mainly inspired by the doll logic. This isn’t even the yttd dolls in the Barbie movie. It’s literally just inspired by the doll logic. (After going back it dies have trailer spoilers but it’s basically fine)

Also this gets LONG

Ok so to start the dummies are not in Barbieland, there in a dollhouse asunaro has created. Which all the dolls asunaro has created live there.

(Also the dummies have always been dolls) (also asunaro’s a toy company now I guess(I mean it fits with the orphanage thing))

Ok to start off the doll human connection thing

Anzu’s the (main) doll/toy that Reko and Alice played with as kids

I also dont know if i should make her weird Barbie, like they playing with her too hard as kids works but also they could use her now to play with the others

Hayasaka and Gin have a similar relationship. Hayasaka was actually given to Gin pretty recently so he could play with the others.

Kurumada is a doll that Shin bought that Kanna likes to play with sometimes

Ranmaru is a fashion doll that sara will make clothes for and doesn’t rlly get played with.

The only time he does is when Gin and/or Kanna ask her too

So he just kinda sits on a shelf in her room most the time

Hinako was a cop/police kinda doll given to Keiji as a kid that he ended up forgetting about and him mom found at some point and gave it back to him (after Mr. Policeman’s death) and he ended up changing Hinako up a lot to fit where he is now

(also I might make a Nimona au with them at some point but idk)

Now here is where it gets difficult

This is rlly the only thing I can think of for Mai and Qtaro that I can think of (Without it being weird)

I hc qtaro as gay amd Mai as a lesbian but if you don’t and think Qtaro’s into women (or ship them) I feel like this could get a little weird

So I feel like the TikTok I linked is rlly the only thing that could work

Especially since I feel like Mai would be pretty fashionable (if anyone has any ideas Lmk)

Everything else that’s doll logic is the same

Also there is no Barbie ken thing it’s just a dollhouse(basically)

I am going to use the main plot of something happens to one of the dolls and had to go to the real world to fix it

I didnt rlly have a plan oh who but after typing this it’s going to be Hinako/Keiji

I want another dummy to go with her but as of typing this idk who yet (it’s probably going to be Ranmaru)

I actually don’t have much after this

It’s rlly just Hinako brings the humans to the dollhouse

That’s it (as if rn) bye

13 notes · View notes

thekidthesuperkid · 7 months

Note

Hi I would love to hear you expand on your queer superfam headcanons if you’d be willing to share

Hi anon! I'd love to!

Right now I've been mainly thinking about Clark and Lois. For Lois, I think of her as bi or pan (Wonder Woman #170 you will always be famous to me). She experimented with her sexuality a lot in college and in high school (there were some fights with her father about it), but because of a combination of things didn't really date often. For one she was super ambitious and focused on her career and that came first for her, but then also half the guys who were attracted to her were assholes and she never put up with their shit unless she needed something from them, which gave her a bit of a reputation in her schools and workplaces, you know how it goes. Now that wasn't a deterrent for the resident sapphics, quite the opposite in some cases, and Lois did have some hookups with them but again didn't date much. She doesn't get emotionally close to people easily or quickly. This might mean she's demi- or grey-romantic, or she's just a busy career-driven woman who's experienced trauma and is also a bit neurodivergent. Her gender is cis and femme in a mildly dykey and "fuck you" kind of way. Also she's fairly unreserved and uninhibited about her sexual desires. She's pretty into kink and unashamed about it.

Right now I really like my transfem!Clark headcanon. She doesn't realize anything or come out until later in her life, and even then it's only to Lois, and then she doesn't come out to more people or transition for several more years, and even then only Clark Kent transitions, not Superman. In her early life she feels very alienated and very different from the kids around her but she doesn't have any of the knowledge to understand why she feels that way, so she chalks it up to being neurodivergent and a meta, and later when her parents tell her about where she comes from, chalks it up to being from a different planet. She doesn't realize it until at least two decades later, but her high school crush on Lana is half attraction and half gender envy. Another thing that delays her gender realizations is that she's a butch woman. Typical femininity doesn't fit her. So she never identified with the women and girls around her in a clear and defined way. And also the main core part of her identity is that she's an alien and a refugee and one of the last of her people, and that she needs to help people. Her gender is a bit secondary to that. She realizes eventually, and even though she's delayed and interrupted by a few crises and universe resets, she does eventually transition as Clara Kent, but stays Superman, partly because Superman transitioning at the same time as Clark would be suspicious and partly because she just doesn't mind being seen as a man if its not all the time, and she uses Kryptonian clothing technology to hide the changes to her body from transitioning as Clara. I have the full story of her transition in my head but it's too long for this. So basically Clara is a trans butch lesbian. She is m-spec a bit, but she has a strong preference for women and her attraction to men just doesn't really come up or play much of a role in her life so she prefers to describe herself as a lesbian.

Kara! Kara is a genderqueer woman (masc headband from the 80s my beloved <3). Kryptonian concepts of gender are literally alien and dont necessarily match up to human ones. She goes by she/her pronouns because she just doesn't care to navigate human concepts of gender to explain it to them but when she's speaking Kryptonian with someone she's referred to with...I guess the equivalent of ze/hir? But not that? Idk I haven't properly thought out my ideas on Kryptonian gendered language. She does get frustrated and sad sometimes about how characteristics that would have easily been recognized as masculine on Krypton are meaningless on Earth, but (if I place this headcanon of her in the same world as my Clara headcanon) she does share some of those signals from Kryptonian culture with Clara and bond with her over being genderqueer women. She's also gay. More specifically she's pansexual homoromantic, but doesn't really care for having a relationship with just sexual attraction so...gay. Lena Thorul come back you could've been so powerful...

I like to headcanon Kon as pan, although he's slightly less romantically attracted to women compared to men, and hes demisexual and hypersexual. Also hes transmasc. I honestly don't know how that would work because I keep going back and forth on the specifics of his gender, but the version I came up with most recently is that for a while he identified as transfem and actually transitioned that way but then realized his gender wasn't that and transitioned back but then at that point he'd fucked with his gender so much that despite being perisex amab the term transmasc genuinely felt most accurate, because he does have a strong connection to femininity and his masculinity, despite being more prominent than his femininity, still needs to be taken with the context of femininity to be understood properly. His gender is like the error message you get when too many people are trying to access a site at once. All of this happens in the hypothetical future though. In his early life Kon doesn't feel secure about his queerness and leans hard into performative masculinity and compulsive heterosexuality. At his current age he's just finished growing out of the performativity but still hasn't recognized his queerness. He'll realize he likes guys a while before he accepts his genderqueerness, and then he'll go through all the gender exploration. When hes older he sometimes jokes that he's a he/him lesbian, which is because he feels "butch as gender" is an accurate enough way to describe him, even though thats not how he would choose to describe himself to others. He goes and finds Hero from the Ravers when he first realizes he likes guys.

Jon is canonically bi and Natasha is canonically a lesbian, Mae is genderfluid/multigender and a bi lesbian, Linda Danvers is a lesbian, Cir-El is a trans girl and sappic-oriented aroace, Chris is very aroace with a god-induced soulmate bond (which I'm not sure if I want to keep in my headcanons?), and John Henry is m-spec and both demisexual and demiromantic.

I saw someone headcanon Jonathan as a trans man, and I'm still kind of playing around with that idea in my head and I'm unsure of whether I will use it for my own headcanons yet. I do think Martha should get to have had a girlfriend in college though. I also like to headcanon that she went to a lot of protests when she was young in the sixties.

If you look closely you'll notice that I made most of the superfamily like girls in one way or another lol

#clark kent #lois lane #kon el #kara zor el #jon kent #jonathan kent #martha kent #natasha irons #john henry irons #chris kent #cir el #linda danvers #mae kent #matrix supergirl #my posts #askbox

6 notes · View notes

menalez · 8 months

Note

"but i disagree with ur argument that it’s like. an accepted and normal thing. again, the majority of radblr are bisexuals, the ppl who were prejudiced against bisexuals in such a blatant way were always criticised and being called out and i know this bc i’ve been on here for years at this point and had personally called out many of those ppl who were already basically pariahs outside their own little radblr cliques."

what does it being mostly bisexuals have to do with anything? lots of bisexuals hate other bisexuals most of all. like that imdb person that said bi rape victims are just whiners trying to play 'most oppressed' if they talk about biphobia or that drpepperwoman that said bi victims of abuse shouldn't complain because she as het-partnered bi doesnt feel oppressed so the rest of us must be exaggerating or lying. And plenty of people encourage them and tell them how cool and awesome they are for "standing up" to other bisexuals. Lots of non-bisexuals encourage them.

I don't know how you can think it's not an accepted and normal thing because that is entirely different from my experience. plenty of people that were very friendly with the blackpills are still around and popular, like that like-a-ruby, tenko-irl, desisapphic, lesbian-king-kai and lots of people that reblog from them too less vocally. it's not like I now most of the names tbh only the ones I have seen repeatedly over time. Or like kronkk throwing a tantrum and saying she doesn't care about the blackpills and that they're right and she "loves mean lesbians" and then deleting all those posts when other lesbians started to react badly. or people like piqued-curiosity who say she disagrees with them but always goes out of her way to defend then and say they need compassion and healing, then passes around essays calling bi women dick worshipers and saying bi rape victims are just weaponizing abuse and she calls it insightful and smart, and that rape victims just need to learn critical thinking skills and not zero in on that because those aren't the parts that matter. No one seems to understand that we have every right to get mad at people like her that treat our abuse like an acceptable target even if they claim to disagree with it. And there's weird borderline shit like heterophobic saying she thinks most people are really bisexuals, and heterosexuals are also a sexual minority, basically saying homophobia is the fault of bisexuals because they are the majority and they enforce it. It can't just be that heterosexuals are manipulative and homophobic liars, it must be they are bisexual. Or her saying bisexuals don't experience the core of homophobia, so I guess when we're raped and abused thats some het bullshit that doesnt have to do with real homophobia. Or the lots of women that say weird shit about bi men, anything from that sports are homophobic only because of bi men, to saying bi men need to be exterminated because they hurt all other demographics. Bi women are not stupid we can see that's biphobia that will carry against us too if it was more acceptable.

and most of all maybe you don't see it because radblr is huge, it's not like just you and your followers, it's several circles with sometimes only tiny overlaps. I often dont see these lesbophobes or know who they are until you reblog them to call them out either but that doesn't mean I don't believe you that they're a problem in other circles. maybe you simply don't know the people passing bullshit around bi women all the time but that doesn't mean its not tolerated in some groups. And most of all just like lesbophobia, homophobia, and racism are still a problem I don't know why you think homophobia against bi people was magically solved. Of course its there just like all the rest.

okay after i read this message i now understand that the reason u don’t see them as a fringe group is bc you consistently read things said by both bisexual women & lesbians you disagree with in the most uncharitable and bad faith way possible bc i know some of the stuff you referenced and it wasn’t as you described it

5 notes · View notes

0ystercatcher · 2 years

Note

why do you think lesbian feminism is useless? I'm not trying to be rude or anything I just really want to know

ummm long post warning

imho its just...wrong. while lesbian feminists did correctly point to heterosexuality being an institution designed to harm women, in practice they often failed to separate btwn heterosexuality - one of a few dif options of natural sexual orientations people have, and heterosexuality - as the set of norms and expectations imprinted onto a natural sexual orientation which are forced upon everyone by a patriarchal society in order to perpetuate it. which ended up in political lesbianism being seen as a good solution to that heterosexuality problem.

depending on whose theory you read, this is embeded directly into it too. jeffreys (i think??) straight up says lesbianism is a choice and not just that, but the True Correct feminist choice to fight patriarchy which is obviously bullshit. lesbianism is lesbianism and its just as normal and good as heterosexuality or bisexuality can be for women. others will say lesbianism is resistance to male institutions which is sketchy at best, lesbianism is and should just be lesbianism. the only thing inherent to it is being a homosexual woman and we should allow lesbians to just. be that. with no extra bagagge or weird political attachments to their sexuality.

like there is no special political knowledge or strength against patriarchy inherent to being a lesbian period. lesbians face a lot of resistance for their sexuality obviously, and out of that grows resistance and strength, how could it not lol. but its not something that anyone is born with bc of their sexuality. we shouldnt basically force women to develop thick skins or more radical leaning politics from withstanding homophobic abuse in the first place either, there is no need to act like this is a natural product of lesbianism instead of smth that developed developed out of necessity to face cruel circumstances. imho its kinda disrispectful to lesbians to act like that. but i dunno. i dont go here anw.

but just to finish it off, lesbian feminism tends to posit the best way out of patriarchy is via separatism which ive explained before but its just. not a very good idea lol. i see no use in having to segregate ourselves away from men in order to live good lives. it doesnt fix anything if men continue running around being total degenerates, it doesnt truly help us, it just delays the inevitable real fight for our right to be treated like full human beings by the other half of the world. yes its useful in small scale, teaching women abt feminism and ways to be self reliant is always good bc being self reliant is extremely useful and valuable, but its at best just one good first step to take whats rightfully ours (a dignified respected place in society side to side w men) and at worst a weird circlejerk that doesnt go anywhere. i think theres a few things to learn from successful separatists like how best to organize groups of women and raise consciousness, but not all separatism does that and id argue simply organizing as women isnt separatist. oh well.

disclaimer i understand the historical context under which lesbian feminism came about and its important to highlight that lesbians were very much being left aside by womens liberation movements once they got a spotlight which is also extremely homophobic dumb and harmful to all women and that shoulnt be repeated. lesbians r sisters... we cant win without them and we should never leave thm behind. this doesnt mean the ideas of lesfem are true or extra helpful or correct tho.

#m #i hope readmore works OOF

7 notes · View notes

merrysithmas · 2 years

Note

With that post talking about same gender attraction being what gay and bi are… i gotta ask… given genders are culture … do you think it is cultural to be gay or bi or straight … or do you think orientation evolved and gender is evolved too? If so does that mean sex stereotypes evolved as real…? Does it mean “homosexuality” in other nonhuman species isn’t actually homosexuality because we are just going off of sex and not gender…? Or is there cultural orientation (gender based) AND innate orientation (sex based) in humans? And then other animals with sexes just have the sex based ones.

hm i'm a little confused by this wording and not sure what post you are referring to?

but in my opinion gender and sex are both spectrums.

gender is one's internal sense of self, sex is one part of this. both of these things are a fixed identity that simply interact with how any specific society defines its roles and who in that society enforces these standards. and sex is a very complicated concept and not at all binary.

sex is an amalgamation of hormone levels, phenotypes (first and secondary sex traits), physiology (corpus collosum shape/size/branches etc), cell chimerism (certain organs with more of one parents genes expressed and others with the other parent), possible inclusion of DNA from absorbed twins in utero, chromosomes (many variations possible), crossing over in meiosis effecting receptor site gene expression (SRY gene can be muted during crossing over in gamede creation aka sperm/egg. a muted SRY gene for example will make an XY person not develop testosterone-based features in utero, but still have XY chromosomes etc). this combined with natural personality, etc this is all what sex entails plus much more. and all these traits are different levels inside EVERYONE therefore:

sex is INFINITE. my guess as a queer scientist is that there is likely a bell curve of various sex expressions which can be grouped as "cis" or "trans" or "other" in any give societal space. and that this bell curve of infinitely complex sex expressions in any given society has an influence on (but its important to note this is not the only influence in one's life) who is perceived as "cis" or "trans" within that society.

and of course this is regarding gender (who we are) not gender expression which can vary widly regardless of being cis or trans. for example, a cishet man can just like make up and pink and dresses and want to express himself that way. and why not? perfectly great. a trans woman can want to dress in a masc way and that's great. a lesbian can want to be high femme. whatever. that is merely aesthetic perference. you can't judge a persons sex or gender on their clothing, hair, or what have you.

gender (who you are), sex (what your body is doing), gender expression (how you choose to look), and sexual/romantic attraction (who you want/love) are four entirely diff categories and can be put together in infinite ways.

basically, as the Vulcans say, the world is full of infinite diversity in infinite combinations

and whoever someone says they are: they are.

so when i say i am nonbinary i know my internal body, my physical and mental brain, and my abstract soul are not describable by Western /society's limited categories of Man & Woman. i as an entire human body and soul dont fit in those categories as defined, often erroneously & with political/religious agenda, by Western Society. my internal physical identity i believe is different than what a "cis" woman or man would be.

for example, there have been numerous studies which suggest nonbinary people have different shaped corpus collosums than binary trans people or cis people. the corpus collosum is the structure which connects the two halves of one's brain. in cis people women have a web, men have columns (indicating women are better multitaskers and interpersonal communicators), binary trans people's CCs fit with their cis counterpart - so a trans woman will have a web/trans man will have columns, and nonbinary people have a mix of webs and columns. this is just one example.

plus i genuinely believe souls/energies/essences are genderless and we have access to all forms of energy in our physical forms via my buddhist beliefs. to me, the shape and form of our bodies are irrelevant.

as for sexual attraction yes people are gay, straight, bi, pan, ace, omni, etc etc etc! sexual attraction is complicated because sex is a spectrum! our language is just catching up to it which is why i think Queer is becoming a big great term meaning an identity or relationship: not cishet, not status quo (rejecting both sex binarism and gender binarism as per current society).

it is up to the individual how they view their personal sexuality. all those identities absolutely exist. some ppl may be attracted to bodies, others dont care, some are attracted to certain things and not others.

that is up to the individual how they wish to define themselves, but all those identities very much exist naturally in all forms of nature.

the over all lesson is all queer people are valid and their identities are true and who we say we are. and society just needs to catch up to us and let go of such rigid rules about every facet being run by its defintion of binarism and straightness. inclusivity of all will bring freedom to all.

#ask #anon #i hope my answer my sense to you #not rebloggable because these are my views and i dont speak for every nonbinary person on earth and thats okay too #love you my trans siblings #i hope you dont intend to be homophobic or transphobic in this ask bc that is not welcome on my blog ever #im also speaking as a scientist and buddhist so thats my pov here

5 notes · View notes

yuri-for-businesswomen · 2 months

Note

hi, I'm the original anon. this spiraled way out of control in a way I wasn't anticipating. I wasn't trying to get into a whole debate about the background of political lesbianism.

for the purposes of my anon: "political lesbians" are opposite-sex attracted women who have chosen to opt-out of relationships with men and become lesbians, ie only date women. they are controversial in the community because many "born lesbians" find it highly offensive to imply you can "opt-in" to being same-sex attracted - that it's a choice one way or the other.

you made a post that said hetsex is for procreation only and gay sex is for pleasure. to me, that was saying that straight women should opt out of hetsex and opt into gay sex.

I was asking basically because I wanted to know if you found political lesbianism (the idea of "opting in" to gay sex) to be offensive. if you do, that's your right! but your post saying that only gay sex is for pleasure - so can straight women engage in gay sex, then? or is that offensive? and if it is offensive, what does this mean for straight women, exactly? they can only participate in procreation sex?

this is so fucking weird why would heterosexual women have lesbian sex. i dont think sexuality is a choice. its not offensive its just… it doesnt make sense. you can opt out of having sex altogether but you cant opt in to another sexuality. my post wasnt meant literal and the whole point was about how men treat it and so on i dont know how you got to your take to be honest

#ask

33 notes · View notes

shkspr · 3 years

Note

hi. on your post where you may or may not have ended on 'moffat is either your angel or your devil' did you have maybe an elaboration on that somewhere that i could possibly hear about. i'm very much a capaldi era stan and i've never tried to defend the matt smith era even though it had delightful moments sometimes so i wonder where that puts me. i'd love to hear your perspective on moffat as a person with your political perspective. -nicole

hi ok sorry i took so long to respond to this but i dont think you know how LOADED this question is for me but i am so happy to elaborate on that for you. first a few grains of salt to flavor your understanding of the whole situation: a. im unfairly biased against moffat bc im a davies stan and a tennant stan; b. i still very much enjoy and appreciate moffat era who for many reasons; and c. i hate moffat on a personal level far more than i could ever hate his work.

the thing is that its all always gonna be a bit mixed up bc i have to say a bunch of seemingly contradictory things in a row. for instance, a few moffat episodes are some of my absolute favorites of the rtd era, AND the show went way downhill when moffat took over, AND the really good episodes he wrote during the rtd era contained the seeds of his destruction.

like i made that post about the empty child/the doctor dances and it holds true for blink and thats about it bc the girl in the fireplace and silence in the library/forest of the dead are good but not nearly on the same level, and despite the fact that i like them at least nominally, they are also great examples of everything i hate about moffat and how he approached dw as a whole.

basically. doctor who is about people. there are many things about moffats tenure as showrunner that i think are a step up from rtd era who! actual gay people, for one! but i think that can likely be attributed mostly to an evolving Society as opposed to something inherent to him and his work, seeing as rtd is literally gay, and the existence of queer characters in moffats work doesnt mean the existence of good queer characters (ill give him bill but thats it!)

i have a few Primary Grievances with moffat and how he ran dw. all of them are things that got better with capaldi, but didnt go away. they are as follows:

moffat projects his own god complex onto the doctor

rtd era who had a doctor with a god complex. you cant ever be the doctor and not have a god complex. the problem with moffats era specifically is that the god complex was constant and unrepentant and was seen as a fundamental personality trait of the doctor rather than a demon he has to fight. he has the Momence where you feel bad for him, the Momence where he shows his humility or whatever and youre reminded that he doesnt want to be the lonely god, but those are just. moments. in a story where the doctor thinks hes the main character. rtd era doctor was aware that he wasnt the main character. he had to be an authority sometimes and he had to be the loner and he had to be sad about it, but he ultimately understood that he was expendable in a narrative sense.

this is how you get lines like “were the thin fat gay married anglican marines, why would we need names as well?” from the same show that gave you the gut punch moment at the end of midnight when they realize that nobody asked the hostess for her name. and on the one hand, thats a small sticking point, but on the other hand, its just one small example of the simple disregard that moffat has for humanity.

incidentally, this is a huge part of why sherlock sucked so bad: moffats main characters are special bc theyre so much bigger and better than all the normal people, and thats his downfall as a showrunner. he thinks that his audience wants fucking sheldon cooper when what they want is people.

like, ok. think of how many fantastic rtd era eps are based in the scenario “what if the doctor wasnt there? what if he was just out of commission for a bit?” and how those eps are the heart of the show!! bc theyre about people being people!! the thing is that all of the rtd era companions would have died for the doctor but he understood and the story understood that it wasnt about him.

this is like. nine sending rose home to save her life and sacrifice his own vs clara literally metaphysically entwining her existence w the doctor. ten also sending rose with her family to save her life vs river being raised from infancy to be obsessed w the doctor and then falling in love w him. martha leaving bc she values herself enough to make that decision vs amy being treated like a piece of meat.

and this is simultaneously a great callback to when i said that moffats episodes during the rtd era sometimes had the same problems as his show running (bc girl in the fireplace reeks of this), and a great segue into the next grievance.

moffat hates women

he hates women so fucking much. g-d, does steven moffat ever hate women. holy shit, he hates women. especially normal human women who prioritize their normal human lives on an equal or higher level than the doctor. moffat hated rose bc she wasnt special by his standards. the empty child/the doctor dances is the nicest he ever treated her, and she really didnt do much in those eps beyond a fuck ton of flirting.

girl in the fireplace is another shining example of this. youve got rose (who once again has another man to keep her busy, bc moffat doesnt think shes good enough for the doctor) sidelined for no reason only to be saved by the doctor at the last second or whatever. and then youve got reinette, who is pretty and powerful and special!

its just. moffat thinks that the doctor is as shallow and selfish as he is. thats why he thinks the doctor would stay in one place with reinette and not with rose. bc moffat is shallow and sees himself in the doctor and doesnt think he should have to settle for someone boring and normal.

not to mention rose met the doctor as an adult and chose to stay with him whereas reinette is. hm. introduced to the doctor as a child and grows up obsessed with him.

does that sound familiar? it should! bc it is also true of amy and river. and all of them are treated as viable romantic pairings. bc the only women who deserve the doctor are the ones whose entire existence revolves around him. which includes clara as well.

genuinely i think that at least on some level, not even necessarily consciously, that bill was a lesbian in part bc capaldi was too old to appeal to mainstream shippers. like twelve/clara is still a thing but not as universally appealing as eleven/clara but i am just spitballing. but i think they weighed the pros and cons of appealing to the woke crowd over the het shippers and found that gay companion was more profitable. anyway the point is to segue into the next point, which is that moffat hates permanent consequences.

moffat hates permanent consequences

steven moffat does not know how to kill a character. honestly it feels like hes doing it on purpose after a certain point, like he knows he has this habit and hes trying to riff on it to meme his own shit, but it doesnt work. it isnt funny and it isnt harmless, its bad writing.

the end of the doctor dances is so poignant and so meaningful and so fucking good bc its just this once! everybody lives, just this once! and then he does p much the same thing in forest of the dead - this one i could forgive, bc i do think that preserving those peoples consciousnesses did something for the doctor as a character, it wasnt completely meaningless. but everything after that kinda was.

rory died so many times its like. get a hobby lol. amy died at least once iirc but it was all a dream or something. clara died and was erased from the doctors memory. river was in prison and also died. bill? died. all of them sugarcoated or undone or ignored by the narrative to the point of having effectively no impact on the story. the point of a major character death is that its supposed to have a point. and you could argue that a piece of art could be making a point with a pointless death, ie. to put perspective on it and remind you that bad shit just happens, but with moffat the underlying message is always “i can do whatever i want, nothing is permanent or has lasting impact ever.”

basically, with moffat, tragedy exists to be undone. and this was a really brilliant, really wonderful thing in the doctor dances specifically bc it was the doctor clearly having seen his fair share of tragedy that couldnt be helped, now looking on his One Win with pride and delight bc he doesnt get wins like this! and then moffat proceeded to give him the same win over and over and over and over. nobody is ever dead. nobody is ever unable to be saved. and if they are, really truly dead and/or gone, then thats okay bc moffat has decided that [insert mitigating factor here]*

*the mitigating factor is usually some sort of computerized database of souls.

i can hear the moffat stans falling over themselves to remind me that amy and rory definitely died, and they did - after a long and happy life together, they died of old age. i dont consider that a character death any more than any other character choosing to permanently leave the tardis.

and its not just character deaths either, its like, everything. the destruction of gallifrey? never mind lol! character development? scrapped! the same episode four times? lets give it a fifth try and hope nobody notices. bc he doesnt know how to not make the doctor either an omnipotent savior or a self-pitying failure.

it is in nature of doctor who, i believe, for the doctor to win most of the time. like, it wouldnt be a very good show if he didnt win most of the time. but it also wouldnt be a very good show if he won all of the time. my point is that moffats doctor wins too often, and when he doesnt win, it feels empty and hollow rather than genuinely humbling, and you know hes not gonna grow from it pretty much at all.

so like. again, i like all of doctor who i enjoy all of it very much. i just think that steven moffat is a bad show runner and a decent writer at times. and it is frustrating. and im not here to convince or convert anyone im just living my truth. thank you for listening.

#sorry if this is repetitive or makes no sense or if i got some details of the show wrong #i simply couldnt be bothered to put too much effort into this post #lest it become a research paper and take me several weeks to answer #anyway thats all my opinions #dw #ok to rb

210 notes · View notes

rantingcrocodile · 2 years

Note

have you noticed that radblr lesbians are claiming that bi women sexualize women just like men do? they think we masturbate to porn with abuse or bdsm like men do, and then we go out with men and are apparently fine with sexualizing women.

i internalized this. now whenever i start thinking about lesbian sex or am attracted sexually to a woman because she has large breasts or nice curves, i feel horrible. im starting to not let myself have sexual fantasies about women or be sexually attracted to women just like ive done with men, because i felt like my attraction to men wasnt good for my political beliefs. but now im not letting myself satisfy my ssa because i feel like a perverted sick fuck whenever i do. im not bisexual. i cant be bi, i cant be straight, i cant be gay. i can only be nothing.

oh, gosh. how can i love women if i feel guilty for wanting them sexually? theres no way i can have a good relationship. i know i dont have to have a relationship to be happy, but ive always wanted to try. at least to just experience one and see what it feels like.

Fauxminist biphobes will say absolutely anything at any point if it means that they can attack bisexuals because they're so ignorant and misogynistic that they've lost sight of what feminism actually is or even means.

You've just internalised straight up biphobic (and generally misogynistic) lies due to nothing more than the moralisation of sexuality, and it's the exact same moralisation of sexuality that created political lesbians.

Your innate sexuality and attraction to individuals because of that sexuality is neutral. It has nothing at all to do with your political beliefs.

This moralising of sexuality is nothing but a not-so-subtle dig that if you happen to try a relationship with a man and he hurts you (whether you're a straight woman or a bisexual woman), then if he does abuse you in any way, then you should have "known better," which is nothing but victim-blaming.

Also, remember the first rule of misogyny? Blaming women for the actions of men? And suddenly, because they hate bisexual women, then suddenly they reframe us as "men" somehow?

There are so many occasions where TRAs point and go, "Look at those women, they're basically men, so you need to accept that trans women are women, otherwise you're saying that those other women aren't really women, either!" and we know exactly how misogynistic that is, but suddenly it's fine to discard and attack other women by labelling us "just like men"?

It is absolutely grotesque.

Radical feminism, as a neutral political ideology with facts and figures and the common sense of women, is great. It's true feminism. But it's also been taken over and corrupted by the most bitter and misogynistic women who want to do nothing but languish in their own pain and victimhood with "excuses" to hate other women.

How is what is taken as standard "for women's liberation" when it encourages so much internalised biphobia? When the subtle messages are ones that victim-blame?

There was a story recently in the UK about how horrendously misogynistic and racist the Met Police were in Whatsapp messages to each other, where one male officer scoffed and said, essentially, that women loved being abused by men and that women deserved it. How is that so different to the so-called "feminists" that scoff and sneer at women who fall in love and end up manipulated, gaslighted, taken advantage of and then abused? Because feminism is for class analysis and learning about how to try and keep yourself safe, but some fauxminists go so far that they end up excusing hatred for women and then victim-blaming them the same way that MRAs do, and the same way that incels feel gleeful over. Like, "Well, as feminists we know how terrible men as a class are, so that dumb fuck should have listened to feminism, now she's dealing with that. How stupid." Fuck that.

They do not care about other women. They do not care about you. They only want to use you to support themselves. You and other women do not matter outside of how much of a tool you can be for their own ends.

Your bisexual attraction is perfectly fine. You are not "like a man" in any way. There is nothing "predatory" about your attraction to women.

Block every single "feminist" that makes you feel that way. Every last one. Use xkit to block their names so you don't ever accidentally have to see what shit they come out with next. Stick with other bisexual women. If you're over 18, join the bisexual server so you realise how much you're missing out on by letting those biphobes lie to you and manipulate you over and over again. Find some space and think about what it means to be feminist, and then re-read things that you thought were "good takes" and then recoil in horror at what the implications actually mean.

And if you're as angry and bitter about how absolutely fucked feminism is, then join with us to create and spread a better branch of feminism, without the misogyny, where women come first, where biphobia isn't ignored, where compassion is just as important as common sense, and leave the fauxminists desperate for you to hate some women and then bow and scrape to different women behind.

Because none of that is right. You deserve better as a woman and you deserve better as a bisexual.

Stop hating yourself and start hating who made you feel this way.

#crocodilian answers #<3

25 notes · View notes

nudibutch · 3 years

Note

hi um okay could you possibly give a basic breakdown of femme/butch identities because I really just thought they were lesbian aesthetics... I'm looking shit up online and I'm confused. sorry for the ignorance and no pressure to answer this if you dont want.

dont apologize!! my bestie @loveheartfemme has a lot of great answers/discussion posts and resources in her blog abt b/f labels so i mostly draw from her tags (i pull from a few other places too in this post). tl;dr theyre complex lesbian identities, not aesthetics. a lot of times people conflate being feminine == “femme” as an adjective and being masculine == “butch” and use both as adjectives when butch and femme are nouns.

two really nice quotes that i think sum up butch and femme really well:

(1) caroline narby, “on my butchness”: “butch is a trickster gender -- and so, in a similar way, is femme. lesbian gender expressions do not emulate heteropatriarchy, they subvert it. femme removes femininity from the discursive shadow of masculinity and thereby strips from it any connotation of subordination or inferiority. butch takes the markers of “masculinity” and divests them of their association with maleness or manhood. butchness works against the gender binary -- the masculine/feminine paradigm -- and reclaims for women the full breadth of possibilities when it comes to gender expression.”

(2) joan nestle (1967): “butch-femme relationships, as i experienced them, were complex erotic statements, not phony heterosexual replicas. they were filled with a deeply Lesbian language of stance, dress, gesture, loving, courage, and autonomy.”

these identities were borne from the 1950s lesbian working class. you’ll also see two working definitions of butch and femme: as lesbian identities, and as words used in ballroom culture (both are valid uses of the words, but stem from different areas).

here are some links to get you started:

about being femme:

[1] [2] [3] what does it feel like/mean to be femme?

[4] [5] [6] femme and expression and [6] why femme =/= aesthetic (same applies to butch: you dont need to be Xtreme masculine to be butch!)

mel’s tag on femme things (her own posts + great rb’s about the identity)

about being butch:

[1] how is butch different than just being masculine?

[2] [3] [4] what does it feel like/mean to be butch? what does it mean to be “stone”? [5]* note: at the end of this post op references user persistentlyfem, this was before persistentlyfem posted a t*rf manifesto; also: stone is a subset of butches and femmes

mel’s tag on butch things (her own posts + great rb’s)

about the b/f dynamic and other b/f things:

lovely answer from cowboyjen (in her 50s) about the b/f dynamic

about the butch/femme dynamic and dilution of the word femme (and how r*dfems have twisted these words)

a great post about how r*dical f*minists are historical enemies to the butch/femme community

about butch and femme being lesbian identities

another post from cowboyjen about butch being a lesbian identity

additional closing statement: butch and femme are always labels that can be used by trans women. there are trans butches and trans femmes. trans women have always been an integral part of our community.

a list of rec’d butch/femme books, many of which are written by important historical people in the butch/femme community (e.g., leslie feinberg)

(a lot of people will not agree with me that butch and femme are lesbian-only labels. if you disagree please don’t come barrelling into my inbox about it, if it bothers you a lot that i think this, just quietly unfollow, i don’t want my blog to turn into a discourse hub.)

#cowboyjen doesnt mind ppl saying 'dressing butch' which i disagree w bc i think it deprecates the word #but i Respect cowboyjen and what she has to say bc shes an older lesbian and has seen a lot of things from a historical pov #i also draw heavily from mel's blog bc she 1) is so organized (we stan) and 2) she has a lot of great summary posts #and she also says stuff much better than i could #masterpost #long post #about being butch #droolydrippyprincess #answered #i could go on forever with posts and resources but i feel like these are good ones to get a feel for what these identities are #and mel's archive on butch and femme stuff is great #scrolling through there is really helpful

154 notes · View notes