#btw this post inherently includes trans women | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

punkeropercyjackson · 16 days

Text

To explain the problem with how the Atsv fandom deals with Hobie a lot and sometimes with Gwen too............Hobie and Gwen have certain expectations put on them as a slightly older black character and a female character who's the male mc's love interest.Hobie is expected to be overtly sexual and uncommited to his partners('I hate labels' was him being nonbinary,please be fucking serious)and have a huge mean edge to him or either a caretaker to the Spiderband with no personality and stories of his own and Gwen is expected to be a 'normal' straight girlfriend-Hence all the emphasis put on her being a girl and Miles a boy even when it dosen't fit-including the toxicity frequent in white ones with black boyfriends specifically(that's what 'snowbunny' means btw)and her experiences as a friendless abuse victim who's trans and was kicked out by her cop dad for doing activism isn't something that you can ignore,because GWEN can't ignore it either and neither can Hobie with his own lived antiblackness and adultification that are inherently intertwined with eachother

Gwen wasn't written to be a stereotypical hashtag quirky cis white girl with no real problems besides wanting the guy to like her back,Gwen was CANONICALLY written as a usual TRANS girl and those are absolutely different because i known both closely and she reminds me infinitely more of tgirls who're pastel softgirls for gender validation instead of white woman fragility and the only reason her and Margo weren't a trio with Hobie pre-Miles is the same reason Peter B didn't come with Gwen to visit Miles and it's that writers wanted to isolate them from eachother to emphasize Ghostflower as if they didn't pull it off just fine in the first movie and when the only weak points in the second one are FROM them doing that and if you think about it for 5 seconds you'd realize that Margo and her have every reason to love eachother so much and hang out.And Hobie has plenty of interesting traits and potential even without his comics lore and he never shows interest in sex-Rightfully so,because this is a fucking children's franchise!!!-and any 'vibes' adult Hobie bullshitters got was them being creeps who can't turn off horny mode and you can just say you don't ship Ghostpunk and Punkflower instead of making a fool of yourself by denying how much mutual romantic interest and chemistry Hobie has with Gwen and Miles

And y'all WILDIN' if you actually think Hobie's Team Dad status to the Spiderband is something that takes zero toll on him but i know for a fact it eventually does and he tries to hide it because he feels guilty but they find out and let him breakdown and take care of him too starting from then on because he's not their ACTUAL Dad,he's a 17 year old and he's their best friend and that's what best friends DO.Gwen ain't a pick me either,she's a trans legend who didn't magically turn cis when she started passing contrary to how y'all think transfemininity work and Hobie didn't 'adopt' her,him taking her in was intersectionality and solidarity between black people and trans women which has an extremely important history in punk culture and deadass one of the first thing's i learned when i started my research after i decided to go pastel punk.You all look dumb as hell with these janky ass takes,especially those random hate comments i'm always seeing on Hobie x Spiderband posts and the defenses towards the cisfeminization of Gwen and don't even get me started on the Switfie allegations as if Hobie isn't obviously a The Cure fan and Gwen a Tv Girl one,and if you want minority characters to be written offensively with no depth so bad,go back to watching Danny Phantom and Miraculous Ladybug and leave Hobs and Gwendy tf alone!!!!!

45 notes · View notes

butch-reidentified · 1 year

Note

I notice articles of Radfems' teaming up with conservatives to curb trans activists. I thought radfems are left-leaning. Why do radfems team up with the right wingers if that's the case?

This is going to be long but contain a lot of very important information people need to understand about the radfem perspective on gender compared to both the conservative one and the genderist one.

I don't personally know any radfem who would ever do this so the simple answer is I can't tell you why someone would bc I've never even witnessed it, let alone gotten to ask their reasoning. People who call themselves gender critical and get called TERF aren't necessarily radfems. Radical feminism is by definition a left wing ideology. If you were active on radblr, you would see frequent posts calling out conservative women who try to act all buddy-buddy with radfems re: trans stuff. We on radblr do not tolerate that or their presence - at least not in the corner of radblr where I exist. I block right wing blogs on sight.

Contrary to popular trans belief, we don't agree with conservatives on trans matters either. Where conservatives want to reinforce gender, maintain the existence of gender, and are bioessentialist (a term genderists use incorrectly btw*) by nature of their predominantly Christian beliefs, radfems are gender atheists and abolitionists.

*Bioessentialism doesn't mean "vagina = woman, penis = man." It refers to the belief that women (aka female humans) are genetically/inherently nurturing, caregivers, emotional, sensitive, intuitive, quiet, physically weak, like pink and princesses and flowery dresses, etc., and that men are genetically/inherently strong, resilient, tough, outdoorsy, aggressive/violent, stoic, rational, leaders, like trucks and mud and red meat, etc.

While bioessentialism is the belief that all these stereotypes are innate, these stereotypes themselves are what make up gender. "Gender stereotypes" and "Gender roles" are redundant phrases. Gender *is* just stereotypes based on sex. Male aka "amab" people are expected to adhere to the truck-loving, tough, aggressive, stereotypes mentioned above. Those stereotypes are placed based on their physical body - the male body - not placed on them because of their INTERNAL "gender identity." For proof, look no further than the baby gifts an expecting mother receives after finding out the sex of her unborn child: they are not random, gender-neutral gifts, they're blue pajamas with dinosaurs on them because boy.

Radfems want to eliminate gender. We view sex as a neutral biological fact, like your height, foot width, or hair or eye color.

Imagine if, before a baby is born, doctors tested its future hair color, and that information was believed to determine everything about the child. Oh, it's a brunette! So it will be opinionated, love playing with building blocks, enjoy science, and its favorite color will be green! Oh, a blond? Well, better get it yellow EVERYTHING covered in butterflies, and order some craft supplies (blonds are just naturally more creative than brunettes, of course). Be prepared... blonds are soft and sensitive and moody. They're very artistic but struggle to keep up in math and science classes, and are so indecisive!

This is what gender is. A massive, all-encompassing set of traits that are assigned to one sex or the other, designed explicitly by patriarchy to maintain the oppression of the female sex. It defines everything, starting with how people treat you before you're even born, including who you will be expected to be all your life forever, up to what jobs you're likely to get and how much you'll be paid. Society has decided that which type of gametes your body is designed to produce (whether or not you successfully produce them is utterly irrelevant to what your body is DESIGNED genetically to do) determines every last thing about your life. There's a stronger argument for astrology than gender.

So conservatives want to perpetuate gender, keep males doing all those things I listed (which we call "masculinity") and females doing all those things I listed (often called "femininity"). Radfems want gender gone. We want your sex to be no more relevant to your life than your height or hair color. We believe that regardless of whether your body is structured to produce large gametes or small ones says absolutely fucking nothing about who you are, what you are capable of, your likes or dislikes, your intelligence, or anything else.

So, no. I would sooner die than team up with conservatives. We have nothing in common. You are by definition NOT radical feminist if you support gender and will team up with those who do, just to ~own the trains~. That isn't a no true Scotsman, it's just how definitions work.

I am not against trans people. I am 100% in favor of safety and protection for trans people. I simply don't view gender the same way many trans people (specifically those we call genderists or TRAs) do. I don't believe in an internal gender identity any more than I believe in an internal hair color identity. I do, however, believe in EVERY human's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, healthcare, self-expression, non-discrimination, etc. I believe clothes and toys and hobbies and occupations and likes and dislikes and skills and weaknesses all have zero to do with your sex.

This is my struggle with gender identity ideology: nobody has been able to answer the most fundamental defining question I have about it. If, as many trans activists claim, their gender identity has nothing to do with clothing, nothing to do with haircut, nothing to do with being hairy vs shaven, nothing to do with personality traits, nothing to do with likes and dislikes, nothing to do with whether you prefer dolls or hotwheels, nothing to do with all those stereotypes I mentioned... but it's also not simply a descriptor for one's sex, what is left? What remains to give gender meaning? What is a boy/man or girl/woman? Without referencing any sex stereotypes or sexed body parts, how do you know which one you are?

If anyone could give me a genuine, logical answer to this, an explanation for gender identity that has nothing to do with sex stereotypes and makes concrete sense, on God I would become the biggest TRA on earth.

Because I don't believe that gender is anything more than sexist stereotypes, the idea of gender identity is incompatible with my values. Because I view sex as a simple biological fact which should be as neutral as hair color, I don't think it makes sense to believe one can fully and truly change sex. If you dye your hair blond, the roots will still grow in the original brown color determined by your genetics. You may be able to appear as a blond and convince some people you are naturally blond, but it doesn't *actually* change the reality.

I believe there are people with physical sex dysphoria, like myself and my best friend, for whom medical transition is in many cases beneficial (it was for me) in alleviating those odd "phantom sex characteristic," very neurological-seeming symptoms. But while having a double mastectomy did help the sensations, it didn't turn me into a male human (man), and I have certainly never wanted to be one. My best friend lives a life where everyone perceives her to be female, though she was born male, simply because the medical process she went through to alleviate those neurological sensations resulted in people perceiving her as female (passing). Her "social transition" was not intentional or gender related, just an incidental byproduct of the medical one. It was simply easier, and probably safer, to assimilate into social womanhood than to tell everyone she's actually male despite appearing female, though she still does not have a gender identity, does not wear makeup or skirts or perform femininity, and couldn't care less about pronouns - I use "she" because that's how my brain naturally perceives her. Outside of this concrete, material, neurologically plausible view of sex dysphoria (which still has nothing inherently related to *gender* about it), I don't understand what it means to be trans.

Radfems want both sexes to be utterly free to be whoever they are, without being influenced/socialized into gendered (aka sex-stereotypical) behaviors and preferences. We want males comfortable & safe wearing flowery sundresses and crying often and being homemakers if they wish, and females under zero societal pressure to shave, wear makeup, etc., and totally free to speak their minds and wear cargo shorts without so much as a sideways glance. Conservatives want males to be "masculine" and females to be "feminine," whereas we want "masculine" and "feminine" to be as absurd concepts as "blondian" and "brunettian" sound. Fundamentally, radfems & conservatives exist in opposition.

Anyone who has an issue with trans people, and for whom that issue is so important they'll team up with conservatives just to fight the trans movement, has utterly lost sight of the goal of feminism (if they were feminist to begin with), which is female liberation. Radfems believe gender abolition is a crucial step toward female liberation; working with people who want to enforce gender such as conservatives would be working against our own interests.

I've been on radblr a few years and never seen anyone team up with conservatives. Whoever you've heard about in the news, idk who they are, but I fully condemn cooperation with the right wing and assure you that is not something your standard radfem will tolerate. Much like how most trans people feel about Caitlyn Jenner.

#mine #ask #anon ask #anon #radblr #radfem #radfem safe #gender critical transsexual #gender critical #gender identity #gender ideology #radical feminism #gender abolitionist #gender abolition #trans ideology #trans identity #what is a woman #sex vs gender

312 notes · View notes

rollercoasterwords · 1 year

Note

(this is from marxismlupinism btw just sending an anon cause still shadowbanned + dont want my r/s blog tied to my main blog anyway)

lmao if only my followers were your followers literally idk why my anons r so mad im just stating the established party line of the blog they chose to follow...

literally every online community ive been in youve been able to say you think the community has XYZ problem and people could discuss the problem and suggest solutions honestly baffling that peoples response to someone saying the hp fandom is transphobic is to go "no it's not" instead of, idk, either trying to make it less transphobic if you think it's salvageable or leaving it if you think it's unsalvageable. the only communities ik that would respond to an accusation of transphobia w denial rather than taking trans people's concerns seriously are, well, actually overtly explicitly transphobic communities lol... and the people claiming they "engage critically" are very clearly not if their response to criticism of the hp fandom is to be defensive—if you engage critically with something that means taking seriously good faith criticism of the thing you engage critically with. like i "engaged critically" w hp/rs for the past 2.5 years and i have never ever gotten defensive at someone criticising hp or its fandom (esp since like... almost all the people criticising hp or its fandom are trans and im not gonna go harass another trans person for being understandably upset at ppl engaging w transphobic media lol).

hp fans (including tme trans hp fans—and, btw, we're well aware there are some transmasculine hp fans, the rest of the trans community just think they suck and are losers lol and i can't imagine that the transmasc hp fans aren't aware of this fact unless they just dont interact w other trans people outside the hp fandom at all) will criticise hp and jkr while believing that the hp fandom itself is above criticism. this does the dual work of distancing themselves from harry potter/jkr, which even they cannot defend/pretend is not bad, while also absolving themselves of all responsibility for any transphobia & transmisogyny they perpetuate or engage in. it's honestly a deeply immature way of engaging with media as well as one that logically falls apart under any scrutiny—firstly, if you accept that hp and its author are deeply bigoted, isn't it just logical that its fanbase would share the politics of the source media? secondly, this is just empirically false lol. there didnt always used to be basically no trans women in the hp fandom—i myself used to be friends with several back in the old days—but most transfems left the fandom in 2020–2021 bc of jkr's increasing transmisogyny. and speak to any of the transfems who did leave at that time and they can tell you their firsthand experiences. like, i really dunno how you can claim the hp fandom isnt transmisogynistic without just outright saying that you think most trans women are crazy and making shit up when they say they dont want anything to do with hp or its fans.

anyway ill stop writing essays in ur inbox now rae xoxo love ya have a nice day!

hi laura <3 yeah truly i think it is so weird that someone would choose 2 follow a blog on tumblr.com which clearly states "i don't like hp/hp fandom" and then get mad when that blog makes a post saying. "i don't like hp/hp fandom." babe why r u at the criticizing hp fandom store if u don't want hp fandom criticism....

and yeah i've talked before on my blog abt how like. i do not think we can "separate" fandom from jkr + the inherent shittiness of hp + my personal stance is that i think if u are engaging with hp fandom in 2023 u should at least be prepared to acknowledge + address the fact that u are engaging w a fundamentally conservative piece of media that is rooted in horrible politics, bc if u don't fully understand how jkr's politics are steeped throughout the franchise then it is much more likely that u will just be. absorbing + perpetuating them.

i think something that gets left out of a lot of conversations abt jkr even when discussing how shitty she is within hp fandom is the fact that like. yeah she's broadly transphobic, but she is specifically transmisogynistic, and the politics + policies she endorses are most targeted + harmful towards trans women. in my personal experience thus far in hp fandom i've encountered a lot of tme trans people, and i think there can be this tendency to go "well i'm trans and i know so many trans people who have carved out a space in this fandom that is super affirming + positive for ourselves, so obviously there is no transphobia here" and like. bc of the strong emotional connection to what people view as a safe queer space it can feel like an attack or whatever when someone goes "ok but. have u considered transmisogyny." or just whenever someone is like. rude/mean/cunty in their criticism of hp--but like. tbh as tme trans people i just think it's more important to recognize that many other trans people (and especially tma trans people) have a reason for being rude/mean/cunty in their criticism of hp and even if it hurts ur feelings it's more important to actually think about where that critique is coming from then to get upset bc u feel like it wasn't phrased nicely. at the end of the day just bc a space feels safe 2 u does not mean it is going 2 feel safe 2 everyone!!

#have seen people get offended when criticism isn't worded nicely enough bc they feel like it's...idk.#ungrateful? to like. the good parts of the fandom ig.#but personally i just feel like. my community + friends in this space already know i value them.#+ honestly being critical abt hp + hp fandom is part of that lmao #if i don't care abt my community then i'm more likely 2 be like ah fuck it let it rot #but if i DO care abt my community then. i'm gonna be like hey let's listen 2 criticism + try 2 learn from it......like.#that just seems obvious 2 me #but yeah i think a lot of hp fans have the view that fandom is like. completely separate.#and well. i do not agree! so u will not find that view supported on this blog lmao #anyway. laura u are welcome 2 write essays in my inbox anytime <3 #ask #ranting and raving

24 notes · View notes

anerdyfeminist · 7 months

Text

Ok now that I’ve slept and my brain is in her better thinking mode…I gotta say I feel kinda annoyed Re that last whole @whatbigotspost thing.

If I, as a woman, talk about my experience with a trend in interacting with straight men in my life, that is very different from interacting w/ other women (or queer men or NB folks) and those women understand and validate that experience, and I post about the experience, WHY would a person who is neither a straight man nor someone who knows me and has been a part of my interactions think it’s about them?

If I make precise statements that are about interactions between men and women I know, I am not saying those are 100% of the interactions of all people. I am not saying I believe in a gender binary. I am not saying all women will agree with my assessment. I am definitely not saying trans women are not women as my definition of women inherently always includes all women, too, btw. And yes, I am also not saying ALL straight men even do the damn thing. It’s like y’all really bringing us back to “not all men?” land in 2023?!

Why can’t I just talk about an experience of misogyny I have lived? Why can’t I call out the men who DO the damn thing?

This is what people are talking about in the many new (and deeply fascinating to me) posts that are popping up about reclaiming feminism here again and allowing space to speak about misogyny and men’s, as an oppressor class, behaviors within it. I’ve noticed an uptick in feminist discourse like this and after thinking about that last post, I feel like this is related. As many of those posts have pointed out, in our efforts to excise the festering bullshit that is terf ideology, in our effort to show how sex/gender/gender identity/presentation/etc. are not binary, we lost the thread of the value and truths in actual feminism. We lost basic concepts of understanding misogyny and patriarchy. We threw the baby out with the bath water and trans femmes are among the best to speak on it.

Are we really going to act like there aren’t specific harms that happen to women and girls all the time, at the hands of men, because so many people don’t cleanly fall into the traditional fake binary of men/women?

Like really?

#I don’t agree w/ 100% of that linked piece but it’s got a lottttt of good shit in it #mine #feminism #fuck off terfs

7 notes · View notes

attackpunk · 7 months

Note

Hey attackpunk, saw you liked my post multiple times and that got me curious. I'm guessing this is the blog of the right member of the system to ask.

What does "traumagenic", "pro endo" and "transandrophobia" mean?

Also, thanks for the headsup on nsfw on this blog, i'll follow your sfw agere blog, as I find nsfw uncomfortable.

Babygirl

Hey there, thanks for the ask!

Traumagenic is a term describing the origin of a system. It basically means my system formed from traumatic experiences. I consider myself to have DID because of this.

An endogenic system is any system that didn't form purely from trauma, and since there are systems like that who exist I support their right to live as they choose.

A lot of people don't like the idea of endogenic systems because they think plurality/systemhood is only valid when it matches the official diagnosis criteria in the DSM, but I personally disagree because of various reasons, some of which include "I don't like the DSM as a concept" and "it's not my business to tell people what they're experiencing is wrong"

Transandrophobia is the specific term for transphobia against transmasculine people, like how transmisogyny is transphobia against transfemnine people

A lot of people don't like this either because they think that trans men are inherently bad because they think all men are bad, or that for some reason trans men talking about their problems is hating on trans women no matter what, but as a collectively transmasculine system we disagree, again for various reasons such as "no one gender is inherently evil or inferior to another" and "trans men experience a certain kind of bigotry against them so why shouldn't we be able to put a name to that"

Anyways, that's just where we stand on these issues that come up a lot in Tumblr discourse. If you don't agree with us that's fine, we just suggest you block us so we don't accidentally interact with you again or anything

Thanks for the ask btw, we do genuinely love explaining this stuff to people 👍

#attackpunk #i got mail #not even gonna put this in public tags tbh

4 notes · View notes

fatalism-and-villainy · 2 years

Text

Regarding all the posts I've been seeing recently along the lines of "talking about feminism and misogyny isn't inherently transphobic!" - I'm trying to put into words why, despite not disagreeing with the literal statement there, I find those posts so... angering, and profoundly demoralizing.

And, well, for one thing, "You can't even talk about women's issues anymore without being accused of transphobic!" is exactly the kind of fearmongering t/erfs do. Who do you think is making a good amount of these posts? Who do you think are agreeing with and circulating the posts that are made by well-intentioned people? Who do you think benefits from painting trans people as crazy and paranoid for "seeing dogwhistles everywhere?" Use some common sense.

(Also, there are plenty of posts I've seen on here purporting to be just "about sexism" on the surface that aren't obviously transphobic to many people, but did have dogwhistles that were apparent to me. And when I checked up on the OPs, I was often correct. It's very naïve to assume this doesn't happen.)

But, for another thing - why is this where so much energy and focus is going? Why are you devoting so many posts to wagging the finger at trans people here, instead of asking how you can make them feel safe in your feminist discussions? Why are you not thinking through how to more thoroughly include transness in your feminist analysis - not just by tacking on "trans women are included in this btw", but actually understanding the ways in which analysis of cissexism, transmisogyny, trans embodiment, etc, all hone and enrich feminist analysis? And why is your response to the presence of a reactionary hate group in your online spaces to vent your anger at the group(s) of people they hurt? Trans inclusion is an active process. And frankly, I think it's much more important to prioritize that than to prioritize chasing down these apparent droves of spurious t/erf accusations.

#gender fuckery #alpha speaks

33 notes · View notes

woman-defined · 11 months

Note

non-passing trans women and men are included lol i literally pointed to muscular and masc amab women.

you can be hyperfeminine, have boobs and a vagina yet still be male. because male is a social perception, a construct. it is not a body type, it is a masculine identity and many bodies with vaginas can be perceived as of sperm producing origin. same vice versa.

when i say cultural meaning of woman, i mean like being seen as a feminine ova producer. (btw femininity is not pink and dresses, its an essence)

Your entire definition, if I actually managed to get it because your definitions are so confusing and circular that I’m really struggling to follow, is that being a woman means being perceived as being an adult human female. You’re free to correct me about that but, again, I’m not expecting anything because all your definitions are so convoluted and purposefully confusing because you can’t admit that it’s basically just stereotypes because you don’t want to admit that it’s stereotypes.

Anyway, this means that non-passing trans women aren’t women because they are not perceived to be women/female by the vast majority of society. That’s the problem with relying on other people’s perceptions as part of your definitions: you’re basically saying that other people must perceive trans women as being female (or an ‘ova producer’ as you say) and that’s blatantly untrue and the only way you can deny that would be to deny that misgendering exists.

I then asked you what you meant by cultural meaning without including stereotypes and you then provided me with a definition which literally has stereotypes in it (‘feminine’). You literally said being seen as a feminine ova producer which is just fucking stereotypes, despite how much you deny it!

All in all: you definition relies on stereotypes, despite how much you want to deny it because it’s all about cultural and social perception which is just stereotypes. And non-passing trans people are inherently excluded from your definitions of man and women because society will perceive them as their biological sex, not the way they identify. You can’t just say that words mean exactly what you want them to mean and expect people to just go along with them, especially when you refuse to provide coherent definitions for them.

So I ask you to provide a coherent definition of the word woman once again. Here are the restrictions I’ve put in place (these are mostly set out in my pinned post):

-You cannot use vague phrases like ‘it’s a feeling’ or ‘having an essence’. If you use these phrases, you must then describe exactly what that feeling/essence is

-You cannot use circular reasoning (eg: a woman is a woman)

-If you define woman as being female or experience womanhood, you must then coherently define what those terms mean. Otherwise, I’m going to assume it’s circular reasoning and therefore incoherent.

-You cannot use stereotypes. That’s misogyny. This includes anything about femininity or being feminine (unless you want to specifically describe what a feminine essence is without using stereotypes)

-If you use anything like social or cultural expectations/perception, then I’m going to write this off as stereotypes and say non-passing trans people are excluded. (Again, unless you can specifically describe what you mean by these terms without circular reasoning or stereotypes.)

-You haven’t included this anywhere, but anything like ‘brain sex/gender’ is also off the table as this has been debunked

It shouldn’t be hard for you to write one post with just your definition(s) lined up, right? I think it’ll provide a lot of clarity rather than me trying to pull out definitions from the multiple posts that you have provided. I’ll even get it started for you:

Woman: [insert definition]

Female: [insert definition]

Social Perception: [insert definition]

Cultural Meaning (of woman): [insert definition]

Feminine Essence: [insert definition]

2 notes · View notes

angelsaxis · 2 years

Note

Hi, I love your posts but r*dica4l feminism and t3rfi5m are not the same thing. (I censored the former bc I fully acknowledge that ppl on Tumblr, including t3rfs, rarely make this distinction, and I don't want them swarming your blog.) The former is not inherently trans exclusive and I think Tumblr users would do well to learn that, especially since misogyny is on the rise in the US and liberal feminism is failing miserably at combatting it. Low-key I think we need to reclaim r4d feminism from the t3rfs, whose platform is indeed transphobia dressed in the language of feminism. This is about your Helen Joyce post btw

Okay tbh anon you're right, I've seen lots of different feminisms run by trans-inclusive women of color, especially Black women. It's a fact I can accept ig because I've seen it myself sometimes, but Idk how the rest of folks on here will take to it. I'm gonna go edit the post if Tumblr lets me find it lmak

#yeah t3rfs really have coopted that word too #ask

6 notes · View notes

transmasc-wizard · 2 years

Note

Shit, I forgot to ask the question.

What are some dos and don’ts of writing transmasc characters?

Hi! This question is definitely less vague than the last one, since "how do i write a bisexual character" is much wider than "specifically, what are the dos and donts of writing transmascs" so that's helpful!

So, usual preface: i am not the spokesperson or ambassador for all transmascs. This is a very general post coming from one transmasc, specifically a nonbinary trans guy, and i 100% endorse and encourage looking at sources that Aren't Me (but stay the fuck away from t/r/u/m/e/d/s).

But, on with it: general dos and donts!

DO: remember "transmasc" and "binary trans guy" are NOT synonymous.

all trans guys are transmasc, but not all transmascs are trans guys. "Transmasc" encompasses any AFAB or AXAB person who's gender is in the general realm of masculine. "demiboy" "genderqueer" "bigender" "trans man" "nonbinary trans man" and "boyflux", for example, are all genders that can qualify as transmasc (though are not inherently transmasc; many can and do include AMAB people). However, "binary trans guy" specifically means someone who was AFAB/AXAB who's gender is 100% male 100% of the time.

There are transmasc lesbians, transmasc people who are both women and men, transmasc binary people, transmasc nonbinary people, transmasc genderfluids, and more.

[afab means "assigned female at birth" btw, and axab means "assigned X at birth". AXAB is for certain intersex people and i am not qualified to delve into it.]

DON'T: portray all transmascs as "uwu cutie soft boys".

putting aside the fact that not all transmascs are boys, this attitude is incredibly infantilizing and uncomfortable. You can certainly have femme transmascs and soft transmascs, but please acknowledge that not all of us are like that. The big push to see transmascs as "soft space beans" or whatever is vile; it pushes us away from masculinity and back into neat feminine boxes. It's only as popular as it is because cis people (especially cis women) are uncomfortable with us being Masculine Manly Guys (or even just androgynous). We are allowed to be masculine, and our masculinity is good and important. Acknowledge this.

DO: show that gender expression =/= identity and every transmasc is different! (this can also go for trans people in general.)

the spectrum of transmasculine gender identities is wide and wonderful. I encourage you to portray this. obviously you can't get all of us in your writing, much less one WIP, but I'd absolutely love for people to show different ways of dress & gender expression for transmascs! The glittery fun way of dress, the boring barbecue camo pants dad, the dramatic emo aesthetic, Just Some Guy... everything. at this point i'm starved for anything. Additionally, transmascs who use pronouns other than or alongside he/him are great, too; as a he/they trans guy, i'd love to see it. (this includes neopronouns btw!) Also, transmascs with a variety of genders and gender types (demiboy, genderqueer, trans guy, etc).

DON'T: try to write about "what it's like to be transmasc" if you aren't.

this goes for literally any marginalization. You can write characters of our identity, and should, but do not write the story of "what it's like to be transmasc". That's not your experience, and you do not know how to do that.

Some general things i'd like to stop seeing:

"this binary trans guy is basically a lesbian" (while there are trans guys who use lesbian/sapphic, that is for personal reasons and most certainly not something a non-trans guy is equipped to write)

Trans people's only orientations being gay or straight??? transgay and transhet rep is important but please acknowledge the rest of us

UNSAFE BINDING. fuck this. you don't have a reason to go out of your way and talk about how the transmasc binds unsafely

"this person uses he/they!" *proceeds to call them by only one of those pronouns for the rest of the entire book*

"this transmasc is masculine and that makes them Worse" stop forever please

some things i'd like to see more of:

transmascs who are marginalized in multiple ways! (disabled transmascs, transmascs of colour, aspec transmascs, ND transmascs, etc)

transmascs who love themselves!! PLEASE I'M BEGGING YOU

transmasc narrators! gimme some transmasc MCs

transmasc love interest that aren't treated like a fetish! yeah, i'm aroace, but i still like seeing transmasc LIs in fiction.

T4T (trans-for-trans) couples involving transmascs!! this includes T4T enbies and T4T m/f relationships

transmascs with plotlines that aren't "i hate myself" (connected to point 2)

transmascs with trans friends!

transmascs in fantasy and sci-fi stories!

transmascs who are accepted by their friends and families!

stories with more than one transmasc in them!

I hope this was helpful! Once again, I am one transmasc. I suggest looking around at @yourbookcouldbegayer, finding some other transmasc perspectives, and reading books by transmascs! (fiction and not.)

If any other transmascs want to add on, feel free & please do.

#asks #writblr asks #writing advice #writing characters who are X #transgender #trans #nonbinary #transmasc #transmasculine #enby #trans ftm #ftm #<- please dont describe all ur trans guys as 'female to male' btw. dont call someone FTM (or MTF!) unless theyve said its ok #dauntlessshadowice1 #nico yells writing advice into the void

147 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 6 years

Text

Let's be clear, I don't hate men. I'm not afraid of men because some men are bad. I LIKE many men! What IS happening is I don't TRUST men, because however good or thoughtful or caring they are, the way boys and men are taught to relate to women means that a lot of the time you may not even NOTICE you're taking advantage or hurting people. And you may be mostly a lovely person but still be gaslighting and manipulating the women in your life. To be wholly, utterly, clear, this isn't based on a few bad apples. This is ALMOST EVERY MALE PERSON at some point in their life, I've so far met one man who I've never seen do these things to anyone. One in probably a few hundred men I've met in the 24 years I've been on this planet. And also to clarify, men aren't all rapists or potential rapists. I don't think men are inherently evil. I'm also not SCARED OF WHAT YOU MIGHT DO, I'm upset by what you ARE CURRENTLY DOING. I'm not (only) afraid of being raped or abused, I'm tired of constantly watching my back bc you've proven yourself capable of waiting for a moment of vulnerability or you're demanding that I always be ready to meet your needs and be there and listen. I'm tired of worrying about any friendly gesture or kindness being misconstrued, I'm worried about you hating me and turning on me and I'm worried about you deciding you like me enough that nobody else is allowed to like me, and I'd LOVE to relax and trust you but I can't because whenever in my life I've ignored that unease, with partners and with friends and with bosses and with coworkers and with casual acquaintances, I've been proved right to be uneasy. Over and over and over again, not only with rape and assault but with controlling behaviour or violent jealousy or constant belittling and always this constant gaslighting. And you don't have to be a bad person to do this! I don't think most of these people are, fundamentally, bad people, they just don't NOTICE that what they're doing is hurtful, and they can't hear it when I say it. You're also not exempt as a gay man, an asexual man, a man who would Never Have Sex With Me, because it spills into platonic relationships with women just as much. You're not exempt because you're a Woke Feminist man, or a good and kind man, it's ingrained so deep into how we've constructed masculinity you may just have to accept that I'm not going to 100% trust you whatever you do. And it's not personal. I like YOU. But you're going to hurt me, and you probably won't even notice, so I can't relax. And I'm sorry about that, both for you and for me. I want to trust men. It's exhausting watching your back all the time. But the most consistently harmful stuff for me isn't the times I've been raped or abused or harassed, it's tiny little things that you don't notice you're doing and that are so small I couldn't even point them out to you that say 'you are not safe. you are not ever just Ruth you are a woman first and your personhood can be rescinded if needed'. You're not doing it on purpose. You're a good man. I like you. I think you're kind and caring and clever and I like spending time with you. But I don't trust you and I can't trust you. It might sound paranoid. You'd never mean to hurt me. But man, people rarely do. And yet they keep hurting me anyway. It's not some men. It's not even MOST men. It's not a bowl of skittles with some poisoned skittles in, it's a bowl of skittles where every skittle has a trace amount of arsenic. Some of the skittles have like three poison molecules, some are pure poison with a sugar coat, but EVERY one is poisonous to some degree and even if I manage to only ever eat the good ones it'll eventually add up to a fatal dose. But fuck, I love skittles, skittles are valuable and kind and have so much good to offer the world and to offer ME, they're a huge part of what's good in my life. They're still poisoning me, though, little bit by little bit, and it isn't a personal affront if I take an antidote before I take a skittle. I may still want to eat the skittles, but it would be silly to ignore that there's a growing potential for harm.

#misandry #man hating #Rape culture #sexism #Misogyny #Gender #BTW women and nb people often exhibit the same behaviours #but it's not inherent to the way we're taught to act as women as to how boys are taught to act #trans men are included in this #but if I'm being honest trans women and amab nb people often take a while to unlearn it #They AREN'T men in the context of this post #But I've had a lot of the same problems with amab trans friends early in their transition which they then grow out of #I don't want to act like it's NOT a problem with some of my trans female friends #But terfs are wrong to imagine that trans women are like men in universally perpetuating these issues #Some trans women do but so do some cis women and afab folks #I'm specifically talking about amab trans folks still in the early stages of shedding protective layers if performative masculinity

3 notes · View notes

anti-anti-anti-things · 4 years

Text

You people are SO transparent in how much you don't give a fuck about trans women, it's ridiculous. You want to use our oppressors to dismiss differing opinions on intracommunity issues while ignoring the voices of actual transfem people.

So listen up: if you are TME, you need to fucking stop calling anything and everything you feel like TERF rhetoric/"drinking the TERF coolaid"/ whatever else you say because TERF is your favorite buzzword.

Views that TERFS tend to hold on certain subjects unrelated to trans exclusionary radical feminism are not TERF rhetoric.

Not even all general transphobia and transmisogyny is inherently TERF rhetoric.

TERF rhetoric is a specific brand of transmisogyny that tries to justify itself by framing transfem people as invaders of cis "real" women's spaces. It's the demonization of trans women under the guise of "protecting" cis women. TERFs hate trans women, and if you're TME, you need to stop making the harm TERFs cause about yourself.

One of the most popular things to call "TERF rhetoric" lately is people who are uncomfortable being called queer, and I'm not forgiving anyone who says this. I am a trans girl and I do NOT want to be called queer, and people decided it was ok to call me a TERF because of that. Insisting that a trans girl must be ok with being called a slur is fucked, and I have zero respect for anyone calls people TERFs based solely on the fact that they do not reclaim queer.

(That is NOT permission for TME people to start discourse about the word queer on this post, btw).

Not reclaiming queer, being critical of the beauty industry, being critical of the porn industry, being a cishet exclustionist, etc are not TERF rhetoric because they are not (inherently) about transmisogyny. You have to understand that TERF views on things are often shaped by their transmisogyny, but that people who aren't TERFs (including trans women) can come to the same conclusion for a completely different reason. The reason someone holds a certain view is just as important as the view itself, because if two different people have two different reasons for holding a certain view, then they fundamentally disagree.

Stop calling trans women TERFs because they don't want to be called queer or don't think cishets are LGBT. Stop using our oppressors to silence our voices.

(TME people must reblog but don't you dare clown on this post)

#queer discourse #transmisogyny #terf rhetoric #terf #ace discourse #q slur

5K notes · View notes

adorpheus · 3 years

Text

on fujoshi and fetishization

Lately, more and more, both here on tumblr and on other sites, I keep seeing people spew unfiltered hatred at fujoshi - that is, women who like mlm content such as gay fanfic and fanart featuring men with other men. And I don’t mean like a specific type of fujoshi, like the ones who are genuinely being weird about it, but just like a general hatred for girls (but especially straight identifying girls) who express love for gay romance.

I hate to break this to you all, but women (including straight women!) actually are allowed to like mlm fanfiction and fanart, even enthusiastically so. A woman simply expressing her love of gay fanfic, even if it is in kind of a cringey way or a way that you personally don’t like, is NOT automatically fetishization.

I’ve been on the receiving end of fetishization for my entire life, from a very young age, as many black and brown folx have, so I consider myself pretty well acquainted with how it works. Fetishization isn’t just like, being really into drawings of boys kissing, or whatever the fuck y’all are trying to imply on this god forsaken site.

Fetishization is complicated imo, and can encompass a lot of things, such as (but not limited to):

1 - dehumanization, e.g. viewing a group of people as sexual objects who exist purely for entertainment purposes, rather than acknowledging them as actual people who deserve respect and rights

and

2 - projecting certain assumptions onto said people based on their race/sexuality/whatever is being fetishized. These assumptions are often, but not always, sexual in nature (like the idea that black people in general are more sexual than other races, etc etc etc).

I’m going to use myself as an example to illustrate my point. Please note this isn’t the best or most nuanced example, but it is the most simplistic. A white person finding me attractive and respectfully appreciating my black features as part of what makes me beautiful is not, on its own, fetishization. A white person finding me attractive solely or mostly because I’m a PoC is now in fetishization territory. Similarly, assuming I’m dominant because of my blackness (like saying “step on me mommy” and shit like that) is hella fetishistic.

That being said, theres definitely a difference between how fetishization works in real life with real people, and how it shows up in fandom.

Fetishization manifests in many different ways in fandom, but most commonly on the mlm side of things, I personally see it appear as conservative (or centrist) women who love the idea of two men together, but don’t actually like gay people, and don’t necessarily think LGBT+ people deserve rights (or “special treatment” as its sometimes dog whistled). These women view queer men as sexual objects for entertainment rather than an actual group of people who deserve to be protected from systemic oppression. I’ve noticed that they often don’t even think of the men they “ship” together as actually being gay, and may even express disgust at the idea of a character in an mlm ship being headcanon’d gay. In case its not obvious, this is pretty much exactly the same way a lot of cishet men fetishize lesbians (they see “lesbian” as a porn category, rather than like, what actual LGBT people think of when we read the word lesbian). There’s a pretty popular viral tweet thread going around where someone explains seeing this trend of conservative women who like mlm stuff, and I have also personally witnessed this phenomenon myself in more than one fandom.

The funny thing is, maybe its just me buuuut.... The place I see this particular kind of fetishization happen most is not in the anime/BL fandom, from which the term fujoshi originates - I actually see these type of women way way more in western fandom spaces like Supernatural, Harry Potter, and Hannibal. I can’t stress this enough, there’s a shocking amount of people who are like, straight up trump supporters in these fandoms. If you want to experience it, try joining a Hannigram or Destiel group on facebook and you will probably encounter one eventually especially if you happen to be living through a major historical event. Like these women probably wouldn’t even be considered “fujoshi”, because that term doesn’t really apply to them given they aren’t in the BL/anime fandom, yet they’re the ones I personally see actually doing the most harm.

Of course this isn’t the ONLY kind of fetishizing woman in the mlm/BL world, there are other ways fetishization shows up, but this is the most toxic kind that I see.

A girl just being really into BL or whatever may be “cringe” to you, or she may be expressing her love for BL in a “cringey” way, but a straight woman really enjoying BL is not, on its own, somehow inherently fetishization. Yes, sometimes teenage girls act kind of cringe about how much they like BL and that might be annoying to you, but its not necessarily ~problematic~.

That being said, IT NEEDS BE REMARKED that a lot of the “fujoshi” that you all hate so deeply, are actually closeted trans men or nonbinary people who haven’t yet come to terms with their gender identity, or are otherwise just NOT cishet. I know because I was one of these closeted people for years, and I honestly think tumblr and the cultural obsession around purity is one of the many reasons I was closeted so deeply for so long. STORYTIME LOL!!! In my early adolescence, I was a sort of proto “fujoshi”. I identified as a bi girl who was mostly attracted to men, or as most (biphobic) people called it, “practically straight”. I wrote and read “slash” fanfic and looked at as well as drew my own fanart. We didn’t use the term fujoshi back then, but that’s definitely how I could have been described. I was obsessed with yaoi, BL, whatever you want to call it, to a cringe-inducing degree. I really struggled to relate to most het romances, so when I first discovered yaoi fanfics (as we called them at the time), I fell in love and felt like I finally found the type of romance content that was made for me. I didn’t know exactly why, I just knew it hit different. LGBT+ fanart and fanfiction brought me an immense amount of joy, and I didn’t really think too hard about why.

At some point, in my early 20s, after reading lots of discourse™ here on tumblr and other places like twitter, I started to get the sinking feeling that my passion for gay fanfiction was ~problematic~. I had always felt a sense of guilt for being into mlm content, because literally anyone who found out I liked BL (especially the men I dated) shamed me for liking it all the fucking time (which btw is literally just homophobic, like can we talk about that?). In addition to THAT bullshit, now I’m seeing posts telling me that girls who like BL are cringey gross fetishists who inspire rage and should go die?

Let me tell you, I internalized the fuck out of messages like this. I desperately wanted to avoid being ~problematic~. At the time, I thought being problematic was like the worst thing you could be. I was terrified of being “cancelled”, before canceling was even really a thing. I thought to myself, “oh my god, I’m gross for liking this stuff? I should stop.” I beat myself up over this. I wanted so badly to be accepted, and to be deemed a Good Person by the internet and society at large.

I tried to shape up and become a good ally (lmfao). I stopped writing fanfic and deleted all the ones I was working on at the time. I made a concerted effort to assimilate into cishet culture, including trying to indulge myself more deeply in the few fandoms I could find that had het content I did enjoy (Buffy, True Blood, Pretty Little Liars, etc). I would occasionally look at BL/fanfic/etc in private, but then I would repress my interest in it and not look for a while. Instead I would look at women in straight relationships, and create extremely heterosexual Couple Goals pinterest boards, and try to figure out how I could become more like these women, so I, too, could be loved someday.

This cycle of repression lasted like eight years. Throughout it all, I was performing womanhood to the best of my ability and trying to become a woman that was worthy of being in a relationship. I went in and out of several “straight” relationships, wondering why they didn’t make me feel the way reading fanfic did. Most of all, I couldn’t figure out why straight intimacy didn’t work for me. I just didn’t enjoy it. I always preferred looking at or making gay fanfiction/fanart over actual intimacy with men in real life.

Eventually, I stumbled upon a trans coming out video that someone I was following posted online, my egg started to crack, and to make an extremely long story short, after like 3 years of introspection and many gender panic attacks that I still experience to this day, I realized that I’m uh... MAYBE... NOT CIS..!? :|

I truly believe if I had just been ALLOWED TO LIKE GAY STUFF WITHOUT BEING SHAMED FOR IT, I probably would have realized I was trans way way sooner. Because for me, indulging in my love of gay romance and writing gay fanfic wasn’t me being a weirdo fetishist, it was actually me exploring my own gender identity. It is what helped me come to terms with being a nonbinary trans boy.

Not everyone realizes they are trans at age 2 or whatever the fuck. Sometimes you have to go through a cringey fujoshi phase and multiple existential crises to realize how fucking gay you are AND THATS FINE.

And one more thing - can we just be real here?

A lot of anti-fujoshi sentiment is literally just misogyny. omg please realize this. Its “women aren’t allowed to enjoy things” but, like... with gay fanfics. Some of the anti-fujoshi posts I see come across my dash are clearly ppl projecting a caricature they invented in their head of a demonic fujoshi fetishist onto any woman who expresses what they consider to be a little too much enthusiasm for gay content and then using their perception of that individual as an excuse to justify their disdain for any women, especially straight women, ‘invading’ their ~oh so exclusive~ queer fandom spaces.

god get over yrselfs this is gatekeeping by another name

idk why i spent so long writing this no one is even going to read it, does anyone even still use this site

*EDIT: HOLY SHIT WHEN DOING RESEARCH FOR THIS POST I FOUND OUT THAT Y-GALLERY IS BACK OMG!!!

#rant #fujoshi #I SAID WHAT I SAID #personal #gender stuff

28 notes · View notes

pochapal · 3 years

Note

You don't gotta answer this publicly, but what on earth happened/is happening RE: Dogpiling?

this is long but there’s a lot to cover and i don’t know how much information is pre-known going into this.

basically breadtuber sarah z made a 2 hour fandom postmortem video on homestuck. instead of being a genuine look into what made the comic and the fandom so massive and so relevant for so long, she kind of glosses over all that in the first thirty minutes, then spends the rest of the video discussing homestuck’s two major controversies in the least tactful way imaginable.

the first one she talks about is the hiveswap development hell fiasco, which on paper is an interesting thing to bring up in relation to a lack of content contributing to fandom decline, but sarah’s primary source for all this is a pseudo-anonymous blog run by giovan_h, someone who is notorious for treating dangerous and baseless accusation as fact and for obsessively stalking current and former whatpumpkin staff members to obtain information for said blog. she supposedly tries to bring a balanced argument on what exactly happened in the three year dark period between hiveswap’s supposed release date and when act 1 actually came out by pitting ipgd’s tumblr post (the one that made the odd gentlemen embezzlement claims vis a vis king’s quest) against giovan’s blog (claiming through anonymous and unverified sources that hussie deliberately dicked around and failed to meet a single deadline, then broke contract terms by using the kickstarter money to commission the odd gentlemen to animate act 7 instead of working on hiveswap. there are a lot of other unsavoury claims about hussie and certain other wp members among these blog posts, but that’s the primary relevant gist).

neither account can actually be verified (ipgd’s post claims their information is spotty because they’re talking around a pretty strict settlement nda and giovan’s sources and accounts are deliberately vague and unverifiable to “protect various parties from retaliation from hussie/wp”) but sarah ultimately comes down and says that she’s inclined to take giovan’s blog as more truthful for. reasons. this is obviously bad because within minutes of the video dropping several wp team members reveal sarah never once tried to get in contact with them, which has led to attacks on the team members because a lot of zealous people looking for an excuse to keep being mad at homestuck in the wake of hs^2′s semi-permanent hiatus were emboldened by a video essayist treating the ugliest speculation as hard fact. as of right now, the hiveswap kickstarter has released a statement clarifying the development situation as best they can (from what i’ve read it does point to them legally being unable to point to/discuss certain things) which has had all the impact of dropping a match onto an oil spill. the anti homestuck zealots firmly believe every word of that post to be bullshit and are accusing the wp team of covering for hussie and his super heinous evil crimes (keep in mind we are still not privy to the internal workings of wp because why the fuck would we be) so the wp team in turn are putting these people on blast for this dangerous harassment (it doesn’t need to be said that as a professional being publicly accused of covering up fraud is a very bad thing) and then as a counter counter response the angry fans are now accusing the wp staff of abusing their power to direct mass harassment towards specific individuals (this amounting to people getting into wp members’ private discord servers and publicly posting mean things they have said about giovan et al which imo only serves to bolster the stalking claims) and the whole thing went very ugly very fast.

the second controversy that sarah brings up is everything involved in post canon homestuck (epilogues, pesterquest, hs^2). here she reverts to more of a passively pro-fandom stance, asserting time and time again how horrible and evil the epilogues and everything else were because of how they took the characters and stories everyone knows and loves and warped them into something unrecognisably terrible, that post-canon homestuck was universally reviled. in a very bad and awkward placement of information she then segues into a kind of hand-wavey discussion of the intense backlash towards certain post-canon trans interpretations (of vriska, june, and roxy) in a very I Am A Cis Woman So I’m Not Qualified To Make Any Statements Here Other Than Transphobes Fuck Off <3 But Also This Is Indicative Of A Growing Fandom Resentment way, which honestly begs the question of why she needed to include this at all. another bad thing here is how she super glosses over the “controversies” surrounding “the advocates for june egbert” and “the writer for vriska’s pesterquest route” - she is obviously referring to former creative director kate here (she kind of confirms this on twitter by saying she didn’t want to mention kate by name in order to not stir up further drama which uh... yeah) and the inexcusably terrible chain of events which led to every single out trans woman working on homestuck to resign to protect themselves from further mass harassment and dogpiling from the fandom.

she instead, for some reason decides to focus on how post-canon homestuck has been a total commercial and creative failure, that homestuck^2 basically shouldn’t have even happened after the fandom’s distaste for the epilogues and that it was not only controversial but also was a low quality mess everyone agreed sucked. she then goes on to compare the hs^2 team to the wp hiveswap dev team, and passively applies the same giovan-esque assertions to the internal workings of hs^2, kind of but not really implying the reasons given for the shutting down of hs^2 were bullshit. this is super bad for the fact that the post canon homestuck team is the most openly marginalised group of people working for hs is in an official capacity, and we have seen time and time again what drawing undue, speculative negative attention towards these people has done. again, reminder sarah did not reach out to a single person who worked/is working on homestuck for what is essentially a drama video disguised as a fandom postmortem. the upshot here is that her post-canon section served to embolden yet another wp-hostile section of the fanbase - those who adamantly believe that only the fandom itself can create worthwhile homestuck projects, and that all writers are evil people who want their queer fans dead (only a partial exaggeration) and produce spite projects which are driven by the steadfast belief that their work is inherently superior to official content by virtue of their fan status. among this group were a lot of people who latched onto any accusation against a team member as fuel to push them out of “ruining” such a beloved franchise so sarah’s video serves as proof that all the hs^2 writers were morally corrupt monsters ruining a fandom space that was meant for minors and queer people (this is all very anti/anti-anti carousel of bullshit nonsense that i have no time for) and thus they’re confident to once again tear down the remaining public facing staff members, ignoring how all this crusade has done so far is drive a handful of trans women and people of colour off of official homestuck projects for their own safety.

then she ends the video with a “oh btw this video is proudly sponsored by audible <3″ bit and it’s just. beyond unbelievably awfully stupid that she deliberately reignited this aggression which has caused untold material harm on marginalised people (that happened less than a year ago!!!) just for the sake of quick clicks and ad revenue. she consolidated the most dogshit takes as fact within the general fandom consensus, sided with some of the worst people to engage with homestuck, potentially detonated the last shreds of stability of this independent marginalised media project, and wrapped it all up with a sponsorship from an amazon subsidiary company of all fucking things. this is obviously a case of an incredibly short sighted decision to cash in on a very complicated and unwieldy fandom history but still the potential consequences here are unfathomable.

#extrarabbitsauce #didn't intend on this being public but i saved as draft and now my only choice is to publicly post this. whatever #got called a terf for liking homestuck^2 whatever pigshit this post potentially attracts will be nothing

4 notes · View notes

lgbtpolitics · 3 years

Note

I saw a post from terfs talking about an article about lesbian sex that included penises as part of it to be inclusive. They were obviously fuming at lesbian sex being redefined, but whilst I don't agree with their anger I can kind of see their point a bit... what about it is lesbian if any gender can have any genitals (which I do believe they can btw), I was wondering what you thought of that, like what should an article about lesbian sex talk about?

I think I know the post you are talking about actually.. Basically it was called something like "How to have lesbian sex" and it talked about two people with vaginas having sex, then went on to talk about a person with a vagina having sex with a person with a penis.

I read the post in the feminism tag or something and I was actually with them for most of it in fact I didnt even realise this was a terf thing until about half way through. They made the point that, there was no discussion of sex between two trans lesbians with penises, it focused on a cis woman having sex with a trans woman.

They did also make that point about why call it lesbian sex guide? If you're trying to be inclusive to transgender people then both of the combinations they did explore could be any gender, not specifically women. I could be wrong about this, but I feel like the article used mostly gender neutral pronouns and descriptors so there was effectively no indication that this was about women other than the title. Which does beg the question, why call it lesbian sex? Why not just call it a general sex guide and include different combinations of genitals?

There was another thing brought up in the post that there was no mention of how hormones or surgeries might impact on the sex. And like, I'm not saying trans lesbians cant have sex in a way that on paper might sound a lot like straight sex, but really physical transition does predominantly affect areas that are very relevant during sex, so what they are really talking about here is lesbians having sex with a man, or at least that seems to be what they are thinking whilst writing it.

The part where they lose me however, is in the conclusions we draw from this. Because they seem to think that this is just slipping in the idea that lesbians are having sex with men, intentionally and because they dislike lesbians. But all I'm seeing in this article, is the exact performative fake woke inclusivity that we see in absolutely every branch of social politics. This doesnt read like an article written by a man or a transwoman trying to convince them of the allure of penises. It comes across as though it was written by somebody who doesnt know anything more about trans lesbians than "Hmm I think were not supposed to say women have vaginas anymore so we should throw in something about penises too also pronouns are like, a whole thing, so lets avoid them". It feels similar to every other completely nonesense article ever been written where they are kind of trying to be inclusive but dont seem to have any clue about the people they are trying to include. I'm surprised they didnt throw an x somewhere in the word lesbian.

Is the answer here to just not include trans women when talking about lesbian sex? Well no, but if you're going to try to include them maybe do like, a bit of research into how transition affects sex. Also maybe consider trans women having sex with each other.

If you're not going to do anything of that, and you're not going to refer to the partner as a woman, at least be honest and just call it a sex guide. Theres nothing specifically lesbian about just a list of different ways people with different genitals have sex with each other.

In my opinion, it would be better to just call it "how cis lesbians have sex" and just talk about cis lesbians than to do this odd half assed inclusion thing. They just wrote about cis lesbian sex and then standard PIV sex, which, as was pointed out in the post, is the focus of most sex guides. Cis lesbians do exist and do have sex with each other, so talking about cis lesbians having sex isnt inherently a horrendous thing.

So in summation, yes the article was crap, but it wasnt a great conspiracy to erase women its performative BS.

#lgbt #lgbt discourse #transphobia #terf #lesbian

11 notes · View notes