#basically. idgaf if radfems are right about WHY I'm trans | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

butch-reidentified · 1 year

Note

since you're dysphoric you should understand better than anyone then. if "pussy power" is disturbing if ur female then you're to some extent trans. it makes me dissociate with womanhood x10. idgaf about how men wag their penises, it has nothing to do with me normally. but treason of the female gender is more personal. like an advertisement against "pussy power" because of how gross the nature is.

stop trying to moralize it when i said it's got nothing to do with womens rights too. just because female anatomy instruction was halted doesn't mean there's bad motivations between not liking the reduction to female parts. it's the same thing as lesbians not liking male bodies, a strong dislike but with no prejudice. just not finding the physicality of that reality appealing.

This is a follow-up to this ask.

Most of this is incoherent. Treason of the female gender?? What does that even mean?

I'm going to address the second part first: the sheer audacity of asking me a question and then trying to police my answer. If you didn't want to hear my honest perspective, you shouldn't have asked. You asked a question and I answered it. You say that it has nothing to do with women's rights, but that's absurd. You asked me a question - if you want me to provide an honest answer, you can't just put arbitrary parameters on that answer. There is no world in which I can accurately and adequately discuss this topic while entirely ignoring the oppressive material conditions that have led us to this point. You cannot ask me to explain why "we" (up until very recently it was basic universal feminist understanding that this is a matter of misogyny - radfems didn't pull this out of our asses) "make it a misogyny issue" (it is undeniably a misogyny issue) and then be upset that I discussed misogyny. This is like asking me to explain how icicles form without mentioning anything related to water or temperature.

This *is* a woman's rights issue. What other explanation can you offer for everything I listed in my answer and my follow-up reblog of said answer? What other explanation can you offer for the fact that many men and boys still think that vaginas become looser and/or labia longer the more PiV sex a woman has, but anyone would laugh if you suggested that lots of PiV makes penises shorter and balls smaller? Do you really think all these things I discussed are total unexplained coincidences in a male-dominated society?? If my first answer, my continuation reblog, and this long reply are not enough to show you how this is fundamentally a matter of misogyny, I have many more examples I can give. I'm sure my followers can contribute even more examples and sources as well.

It's dishonest of you to say "just because female anatomy instruction was halted." First of all, it was not "halted" at all - it never existed in the first place. Just as medical research has left female participants and even female cells out of studies entirely for most of history, and is still improving that issue at only an agonizingly slow pace, the inclusion and accuracy of female anatomy and physiology in education is coming along at a crawl. Never mind discussion and education of women's sexuality and pleasure... everyone knows how to make a man climax, but shocking numbers of women are still faking it because men can't find the clit, or think it isn't important, or are so pornsick they think women will squirt after 2 minutes if they just jackhammer their dirty-fingernailed hands into her hard and fast enough. Secondly, education was not remotely the only issue I raised in my responses, so don't come back to my inbox pretending it was (though even if it had been, that should be enough to show you what a systemic issue this is imho).

Now let's address "...doesn't mean there's bad motivation between not liking the reduction to female parts." I don't know what you mean here. Misogyny is the sex-based oppression of female people. The stigma against these body parts is not some mysterious thing that spawned into existence; it is a creation of patriarchy designed explicitly to oppress and control the sex who - barring congenital disorder or medical intervention - have all of these parts. The oppression of female human beings and the mystification of female bodies are fundamentally entwined. There is no separating them into unrelated bigotries. This is one of many reasons that it's so crucially important to be able to talk about biological sex and sex-based oppression. Things like vulva stigma don't exist in a vacuum.

Also! It does not "reduce" women to their body parts to say women are female any more than it reduces brunettes to their hair to say "brunettes have brown hair." I have seen trans spaces refer to "estrogen-dominant bodies" or "people who run on testosterone" countless times, and nobody claims that they're reducing people to their hormones. Talking about characteristics isn't the same as reducing people to those characteristics. This is common sense.

You are welcome to find "the physicality" unappealing all you like. What you are not welcome to do, however, is seek to silence women on a matter of female oppression just because you find it unappealing. You are free to separate yourself from such discussions, but you are not free to demand prevention of them. It is odd to me, in all honesty, that you would reach out and initiate this discussion with me if talk of female anatomy is so revolting and upsetting to you, but to each her own.

You said in the first ask that you "respect women's autonomy." That struck me as odd because that should really go without saying, yet you felt a need to say it. I wasn't wondering how you felt about women's autonomy until I got to that. It's a bit weird to me; usually when someone says something that should ideally be the default, it comes off suspicious (ex: how "I'm not racist!" makes people think you probably are racist). Here's the long and short of it: you can't respect women's autonomy and also desire/attempt to silence women on matters of misogyny, the female body and/or experience, etc.

Now the from the top of this follow-up ask:

This bit is especially incoherent to me, but I'm going to try to clarify my own perspective a bit further and hope our communication styles overlap somewhere along the way.

Regarding "since you're dysphoric you should understand better than anyone:" My dysphoria doesn't blind me to the material conditions in which we live, nor does it make me repulsed by discussion of female anatomy and the stigma around it. I am attracted to female anatomy in others, so it would be especially odd if discussion of it upset me. My dysphoria manifests primarily as "phantom penis" type of physical sensations. My mastectomy helped me with the chest aspect, and I chose to cope with the rest without further medical invention, partly since I knew bottom surgery would not give me what I wanted (in addition to being wildly expensive and exceedingly dangerous for me with my health issues), and partly for ideological reasons. Regardless, my dysphoria has nothing to do with gender, and nothing to do with how other people view me or how I look in the mirror, only the sensations of having the physical sex characteristics I have.

I have no desire to be viewed as a man socially; sometimes I am called he or sir or whatever, and it neither upsets nor delights me. I don't care. I consider myself a gender atheist, meaning I don't subscribe to the definition and perspective of gender that most trans people do. We all seem to understand that gender is a social construct, but we don't all seem to agree on what that means, and we don't all seem to ask the critical thinking questions required to analyze it. We need to take into consideration why that construct exists in the first place/where it originated, who benefits from it and who is restricted/limited by it, and what should be done about it.

Definition: I and many other feminists define gender as the roles, stereotypes, expectations, etc. that are assigned to human individuals on the basis of their sex. The WHO definition (below) works fairly well in terms of what the social construct is and how it functions, but fails to explain how it's assigned. How do people know which babies to put in blue clothes and give toy trucks to and which babies to put in pink bonnets and give dolls to? How do people know which people are expected to stay home with the kids and which people are expected to know how to fix a car? How do people know which person to yell "dyke" at for sporting short hair and cargo shorts? The answer is sex. Our entire lives, these stereotypes, roles, and expectations follow us on the basis of sex.

I believe there is more than enough evidence to support the feminist perspective that gender is a patriarchal tool designed to oppress the female sex. I'm happy to dive into why I believe that in a separate ask if you like, but this one is long enough as is, so to summarize, I'll give an example. Think about the clothing and grooming expected of women vs men. Women (as in female people) are expected to spend a shit ton of money, time, and energy making themselves physically and sexually appealing to men via clothing, makeup, hair styling, shaving, plucking, tweezing, waxing, bleaching, tanning, plastic surgery, botox, laser treatments, 20-step skincare routines, dieting (and starving), and much, much more. The clothes women are expected to wear are inconvenient, impractical, uncomfortable, potentially harmful (high heels), and often restrictive of movement. Women must toe the line between prudish and whorish in every outfit if they want to fit in. Men are expected to... be fairly hygienic, take decent enough care of their health, and wear comfortable, loose, unrestrictive clothing and reasonable shoes that don't literally damage the bone structure of their feet and make them unable to run if they need to. These kinds of expectations are assigned based on sex, often from even before we are born. They are not placed on us only after we declare a "gender identity," and continue to be enforced by sex even if we do declare one.

As such, it's clear to me that it is the female sex that is targeted and harmed by gender, making gender as a concept fundamentally anti-feminist. Without gender, both sexes are free to present, act, speak, and enjoy anything they choose.

I don't like the attitude of "it has nothing to do with me." Plenty of things have nothing to do with me (as in, it doesn't directly affect me), but that doesn't mean I just ignore it.

I really have no clue what the last sentence of this ask means. "An advertisement against 'pussy power' because of how gross the nature is." ??? What is gross? The nature of what? What do you mean by advertisement? I'm totally lost here. This is about as much as I can do in the middle of the night without getting more clarity.

The only other thing I can say is that the entire premise of your original ask was centered on the idea that "pussy obsession" exists in the first place. I have never met anyone obsessed with pussy besides heterosexual males. Feminist efforts to destigmatize female anatomy are not in any way "pussy obsession." The very fact that you - along with the majority of men and some anti-feminist women - have labeled it such while entirely ignoring the actual obsession our society has with dicks shows just how much phallocentrism is seen as normal (to the point most people don't even notice it). And the flip side of that coin is how NOT normalized any non-sexualized positivity toward female anatomy is.

#mine #ask #anon ask #anon #radblr #long post #very long post

19 notes · View notes