#in fact many of her ideas about how trans women DO NOT benefit from male privilege can apply to trans men as well

[remix-of-your-guts]

y'all have GOT to get normaler about trans men.

#for gods sake just because a couple 'transandrophobia truther' blogs made a bad joke #doesn't mean the idea that transmascs face misogyny and oppression (A VERY REASONABLE TAKE I CANT BELIEVE THIS IS CONTROVERSIAL) #is transmisogynistic??????? #jesus christ antimasculism has rotted queer spaces so much #i promise you whipping girl is not the bible #julia serrano had some good ideas about her own perspective but she was WRONG about trans men #in fact many of her ideas about how trans women DO NOT benefit from male privilege can apply to trans men as well #just go read stone butch blues please

[urcadelimabean]

Absolutely no one:

Me: every mammal has a clitoris (and so do many non-mammals such as crocodiles and many bird species). In many extinct as well as extant mammals, sexual stimulation of the clitoris caused/causes ovulation. When one species of male bat performs oral sex on the female before and after penetration, he is allowed to copulate with her for a longer period of time, prompting us to ask how the clitoris and behaviors of stimulating it are an evolutionary benefit. Animals such as bonobos and dolphins engage in clitoral stimulation. Now we look at humans... Humans do not talk about the clitoris at all. Many erroneously think it's vestigial. The shape of the penis is plastered everywhere from graffiti to medical textbooks, even brought up frequently in conversation through jokes, whereas virtually no one, including medical professionals, can even recognize the full wishbone shape of the clitoris when shown it. Clitoral anatomy is a footnote in medical texts. Many men would, for some reason, prefer it if women could come without clitoral stimulation. Try telling a man you'd like him to come without any penile stimulation. Everywhere we are told that by dressing sexy women are "embracing and exploring their sexuality." I will never aim to shame women for their dress or behavior and believe that doing so is extremely damaging and unfeminist. However we need to discuss the social pressures women face to perform sexiness for men and the alarming fact that the clitoris is suspiciously absent from virtually all discussions of women "exploring their sexuality." This is because women are not yet encouraged to explore their sexuality in an authentic female -centered way. Female sexuality is viewed through a male lens, in which the penis and vagina, rather than the penis and clitoris, are the cites of sexual function. (When women do orgasm from penetration, it's due to the stimulation of the internal clitoris.) People describe the clitoris as phallic. On one hand, it is undeniably homologous to the penis, with all the same erectile tissues, capable of erection. On the other hand, for too long the clitoris has been thought of as male when it is not. For trans men and non-binary people the clitoris is not female, but for cisgender women, how can we possibly continue to view the clitoris as male in nature simply because its homologue is the penis? The scrotum is homologous to the labia, yet we do not view the scrotum as a female structure in cisgender men. The clitoridectomy of women in the minds of men is so complete that they have even come up with the notion of "penis envy," a concept which just makes no sense to a woman who knows her body and finds joy in stimulating her clitoris. If anything, we should be discussing, perhaps, the way men feel threatened by women orgasming without the need for penetration, and the misogynistic sex-shaming culture that has caused us to be so universally silent on the subject of the clitoris. I haven't even covered yet the glorification of the penis versus the idea that vulvas are dirty and ugly. There's even a trend now to shame women for having a certain shape of labia minora. (You can get labiaplasty from surgeons that don't know where clitoral nerves are. They may sever them, ending your sexual function.) Women feel vastly less confident asking for oral sex than men despite it being the only way many women can orgasm. Yes, men are shamed for having small penises. And how is that judgement supposed to reflect on the small external glans of the clitoris? Is the "size matters" philosophy another reason men don't want to acknowledge the sheer size of the internal clitoris, that actually extends from the glans to the vagina, partially surrounding the vaginal opening? Really, the size of the organs shouldn't matter at all: the people they are attached to matter. Their pleasure matters. Their bodies matter. Their experiences are equally as important as men's experiences. The clitoris is as important as the penis.

[spacelazarwolf]

I still dont quite understand the idea of trans men not having male privilege? you can be oppressed for being trans and still be a Guy. im just confused bc , at least In My Personal Experience, ive been treated better since I transitioned, and I dont see how one cancels out the other

sorry if this is rambly or disrespectful at all, im just Confused

i think it's important to differentiate privilege from conditional safety. privilege is something that cannot be revoked (or can only be revoked under certain extreme or specific circumstances, like an able bodied person becoming disabled), something most people don't even realize they have until they examine themselves. conditional safety is something you are painfully aware of and try very hard to maintain, because it is something that can be revoked. it's also something that still doesn't grant you all the benefits of privilege.

both privilege and conditional safety are things that should be acknowledged by those who have it because there are many people who don't have either, but the lived realities of someone with privilege and the lived realities of someone with conditional safety are going to be extremely different.

a non trans example:

a white person, a white jewish person, a black person, and a white supremacist are working in the same office. the lived realities of the first three people will probably look something like this

white person: objects to the presence of the white supremacist but can choose whether or not to engage with them and doesn't fear for their safety.

white jewish person: cannot choose whether or not to engage with the white supremacist because their safety is at risk. will likely have to actively hide the fact they're jewish or risk potential violence (this happened to a white jewish friend of mine. she was working in a lab, someone else working there was a white supremacist, and when he found out she was jewish he started stalking her and sending her death threats and eventually came to her home and she had to move).

black person: is immediately unsafe and at risk of potential violence.

is the white jewish person objectively safer than the black person because they're able to hide their jewishness while the black person can't hide their blackness? absolutely.

is the white person objectively safer than the white jewish person because they don't have to deal with the psychological toll of being in hiding and constantly fearing violence? absolutely.

two other issues i have with the "do trans men have male privilege" discussion are that 1. that assumes that every trans man is passing, can pass, or wants to pass, and 2. it lacks intersectionality. when i was looking up examples of male privilege for my post, almost all of them were entirely based in able bodied cishetallo white manhood. one example often given is "men make more than women", but that doesn't take into account the fact that black men only make marginally more than white women while facing more job discrimination and economic disparity. examples that rely on sexuality or sex assigned at birth don't take into account queer and trans men. examples about respect at work don't take into account race or disability.

and the fact is, these things cannot be taken apart and looked at through one lens at a time, because black men have to exist as black and as men at the same time. disabled men have to exist as disabled and men at the same time. trans men have to exist as trans and men at the same time. queer men have to exist as queer and men at the same time. in a world where the ideal man is an abled cishetallo white man, men who are not that do not have the luxury of compartmentalizing.

in conclusion, can some trans men achieve conditional safety by passing and going stealth? absolutely. in this current climate where true male privilege is really only granted to able bodied cishetallo white men, can trans men achieve male privilege? imo, no.

#intersectionality #male privilege #trans men #ableism #racism

[sapphia]

An unfortunate side effect of terf-ism is that feminism has, for quite some time, reached a stalling point where you must either be mainstream feminist or you must be a radical feminist - except in this day and age, being a radical feminist means that you believe 100% in sex or gender essentialism and therefore are inherently transphobic.

And that's true now. But it wasn't always. I know because I saw it happen. I watched radical feminism become terfism. I watched the discourse go from "violence against women is perpetuated by the patriarchy" (reasonable; some good points to be had) to "trans people are the greatest enemy we face" (which just... what the fuck).

Radical feminism was once a useful extension of mainstream feminism. it asked important questions and followed them to interesting conclusions. If women are oppressed in all walks of life, don't men benefit from that oppression? Example, if a woman is socialised to be demure in a workplace, is her male colleague not benefitting from that socialisation? And if a woman fears violence from a man because of the prevalence of violence in our society, then do men not benefit from the violence committed by other men? Whether or not a woman has been raped, it is something she has been taught to fear - might all men not benefit in some ways from that threat that hangs over every woman?

And those are all interesting questions that entire books could and have been written on. But the issue that we now face is that radical feminism took these arguments and streamlined them all into one particular direction: that men are violent/aggressive as biological imperative and benefit from the oppression that they perpetuate against women. That men are the enemy. That they must be overthrown.

One half of the problem is that the exclusionary nature of their new direction is directly hostile to trans people; that this flawed ideology has been used to focus all their resources against a fight against a group who, even if they were an enemy to feminism (which they're not), it just would not be worth fighting against. The idea that trans women are men trying to hustle in on women's spaces is incorrect, but combatting it is also a huge waste of resources given the much more serious problems that women and feminism actually faces.

Which leads us to the other half of the problem: the resources. Because for about 5 years (in the public eye - about 15 years in feminist circles) feminism has been at war with itself. Rad fems are wasting so much time and energy arguing that trans people aren't real, and of course feminists have to argue back. There's so much less room for discourse when half your discourse is just asserting the fact that transwomen are women and transmen are men. It pulls focus away from the radical right, and it waters down discussions of other feminist issues. And it's correct that we do argue this, and trans people deserve their time in the spotlight, of course, but it's so incredibly frustrating that the attack on trans people is coming from within feminism, from the very people who should be allies to the cause. In fact, I would argue that a large part of mainstream awareness of trans issues comes from radical feminism; I don't think radical feminism has helped trans people or their acceptance, but it's certainly brought the issue to the forefront and into the sphere of public debate.

And while we're busy arguing over the right of trans people to exist, extreme rightwingism and fascism are gaining in popularity, and actual radical discourse of feminist ideals are being left in the dust. WHERE is the mainstream discussion of the predatory beauty industry and how it's disguised itself as feminist when actually it's anything but? WHERE is the shift away from the non-tradition, non-nuclear families and relationships? WHERE is the push within radical leftism to marry radical gender ideals with those on race, sexuality, disability, etc? There are a lot of "formerly radical" racial discourses that have made their way into the mainstream in recent years, especially regarding colonialism and it's lingering effects, and feminism is lagging behind because without radical sects exploring new ideals, it is very hard for new concepts to trickle into the mainstream!

I've seen some stuff around tirfs and the tran inclusionary radfem movement, but so much of it is still gender essentialist and so much of it is still trans exclusionary in many ways - and the tirfs that aren't either of that are consumed with infighting just for their right to exist and be considered trans-inclusionary. so again, no extra resources to deal with non-trans issues. It's a hangup of the direction the discourse has gone recently, and I'm not surprised to see it. I think tirf ideals are flawed to begin with - they've been heading in a bad direction basically since germaine greer went mainstream - but there's some concepts there that could do with working their way into the general leftist consciousness because there's some nuggets of truth in there that I'd like to see debated by a wider audience. But I think radical feminism is now just always going to be too closely associated with transphobia, both in people's mind's and in the idealogical base on which their beliefs are founded. It's a poisoned chalice.

What I really want to see is a new near-mainstream movement of far-left extremist feminist discourse unassociated with radical feminism; not because I think I'll agree with them but because I think it's healthy and needed for feminism in general and for the progression of gender equality towards a better future.

#feminism #anti terf #tirf #social justice #leftism

[the-ghost-king]

the term malewife isn’t a very nice term to use...

A man who acts as a wife and is inferior to his #girlboss girlfriend.

Person A: I just got myself a malewife. He's gonna clean my kitchen and watch me download custom content for the sims.

Person B: Sweet! You must be such a girlboss

^^urban dictionary. It’s just confirming to the sexist stereotypes that perceive and expectation of what a wife should act like. It’s quite harmful

It's a parallel to girlboss which is conformity to the sexism within corporate America:

"it becomes inescapably clear that when women center their worldview around their own office hustle, it just re-creates the power structures built by men, but with women conveniently on top. In the void left after the end of the corporate feminist vision of the future, this reckoning opens space to imagine success that doesn’t involve acing performance reviews or getting the most out of your interns." (here)

The word girlboss comes from a book quite literally called #girlboss, in parallel to the negative aspects of this book people eventually rebranded the term "malewife" to parallel it (malewife was originally an nsfw type thing)

In the malewife/girlboss "system" it's essentially the swapping of the problematic aspects, expectations, and socialization of men and women within a relationship

"Girlboss, gaslight, gatekeep" was a meme started to pick on the idea that women should become men and enforce the sexism within corporate society, and I'm sure it was a jab at the book the word came from as well.... "Manipulate, mansplain, malewife" was created to parallel the original meme

So yeah, the whole concept is mocking sexism within corporations and and modern relationships and showing how ridiculous it is. Girlboss mocks the idea of 2014 (largely) white feminism within America.

In example the original meme (created on Twitter) is intended to make mockery of Karen-types:

On January 12th, 2021, Tumblr user missnumber1111 posted, "today’s agenda: gaslight gatekeep and most importantly girlboss," garnering over 43,500 notes in a month (shown below). On that day, Twitter user @CUPlDL0VE posted, "my agenda is gaslight gatekeep and #girlboss," the first instance of the phrase on Twitter.

And a day later on January 13, 2021 Tumblr user a-m-e-t-h-y-s-t-r-o-s-e reblogged the post along with a photoshopped image of "Live, Laugh, Love" wall art instead reading, "Gaslight every moment, Gatekeep every day, Girlboss beyond words" (shown below). On January 18th, the image was reposted to Twitter for the first time.

Malewife doesn't hold those same implications however... The term malewife which is now being used to parallel girlboss achieves it's origins from p*rn, now I'm not an nsfw blog or someone who blatantly discusses nsfw concepts on my blog so I'm not getting super into it but there's a few places it comes from: femdom, bdsm, and feminization kinks... All of which have a connection to queerness in their own right but I don't feel comfortable going into the complexities of that with so many younger people following me.

On February 15th, Tumblr user @relelvance posted, "Manipulate, mansplain, malewife" as a male-themed opposite to "gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss," garnering over 27,000 notes in four days. The post was screenshotted and reuploaded by Twitter user @nortoncampbell on the same day, garnering over 14,200 likes and 2,800 retweets in the same span of time (shown below).

Urban dictionary's explaination of "malewife" is not only harsher than what malewife was intended to mean, but also removes the context of origin from the word- making it something new, different, and erasing the history of who originally used this word.

Because of Malewifes origins vs Girlboss origins, malewife is a less problematic term than girlboss and is more "affectionate" because the term malewife and it's use (up until recently) involved the man acknowledging that he wanted to be the "wife" in his relationship. There's a variety of reasons someone might do this, but it can generally be summed up as a mixture of personality and also personal wants.

I do think it's important to also note that although these words are being "glamorized slightly" they're still intended and being used in a memeing manner, but they're also used to quickly denote arbitrary traits in an individual and categorize those traits...

Although there's lots of conversations to be had for a variety of reasons about the origin and use of the word "girlboss" in relation to sexism, up until recently the world "malewife" was something claimed by men, something men wanted to be called, and something that men who used the term wanted to reference them.

Malewife is about "stepping-up" to "take on" "female" social roles, and it's something that at least some women would be happy to see in society:

"...We have been told that we can have it all, but so far we have noticed that it is extremely hard work having it all, because you still have to do everything that your mother did but now you have to do everything your father did as well. Except that your father had your mother waiting at home with a gin and tonic and his slippers when he came home from work, and you have the washing up and the shopping and a few screaming brats as well as a bloke with his feet up on the sofa watching the football... " (via. Victoria Mary Clarke)

And I don't think that she's wrong at all. Women are still expected to do so much more than men in society without equal reward.

Malewife exists as a a sort of fantasy removed from the truth of society. It's an idea that a husband can be waiting at home to care for his wife, and in this instance it benefits the woman- unlike Clarke's situation above, the woman comes home from a long day and is able to relax without the pressures of society and her life.

Where housewife is a word that holds its origins in forced subservience, malewife is a term that is showcasing men "picking up the torch" in regards to housework- where housewife is socially forced, and girlboss is reversed social compliance, malewife is the rejection of social expectations.

Malewife is about men finding a place in their life's and relationships to make themselves more than a paycheck. To say "I can be emotionally there for my spouse, I can clean a toilet, and drive kids to school, and I don't treat my spouses wants as something expendable". In a society in which men are often demeaned, mocked, and scorned for picking up socially female roles (say hello to misogyny and gendered contamination!)

The Urban dictionary definition, is not only too harsh- but not the way in which the word is intending to be used, because that's ignoring the origins of this word, and the fact that men had a choice in becoming malewifes where women didn't have that choice. It should read more like:

Person A: Ah yeah, I have a malewife waiting for me, he's going to clean my kitchen because I've had a hard day at work and need a break, and then he's going to watch me download custom content for the Sims because I enjoy the game so much and it helps me take a break from life!

Women's wants were often ignored in favor of men's wants, so by the malewife saying he's going to watch his spouse play the Sims, he's really saying "I care about her interests" and by him picking up the kitchen cleaning after she's had a stressful day he's saying "I have a lower stress job so I can handle that for her and make her life a little easier" (because malewife doesn't mean he doesn't have a job).

In a society in which a man's worth is tied to his ability to bring home money and be emotionally distant, malewife is the rejection of this norm. Malewifes are going to be there for their spouse, they're going to step up and take on traditionally women's roles and they're doing it because they want to, because they like it, and because dividing chores into pink vs blue is wrong.

I also want to say, you can't flip a word around and say it does "this" because that's not how it works... Men and women are forcibly socialized in very different ways, the two binaries have very different treatment, and expectations within societies social constructs. If you could flip the forms of oppression that men vs women face (because yes, the patriarchy oppresses men) then you could also flip the forms of violence faced by trans masculine people vs trans feminine people- but that doesn't work either, because women will always be oppressed in the most public way to "make an example of them" while the patriarchy expects anyone who is male to "keep his mouth shut and fall in line". (I know that's worded poorly, but I've just written at least a couple hundred words and my brain is a bit fried already from various other things today- basically anyone perceived female or male will be treated in a certain way as a result of others perception of them)

Anyhow, all this isn't to say that the term "malewife" is inherently free of any form of flaw ever... Malewife is a newly mainstream word, it wasn't popularized until February 15 of 2021... So?? 5 days ago?? The origins of malewife and the social implications of malewife combined with the history of the word, don't make the word bad or impressive and it's not "upholding the ideals of a housewife" but instead a word which provides men freedom from male social expectations.

Can the word malewife come to be a word which enforces expected female social behavior? Yeah it absolutely can become a word to mean that, erase the history from the word, and give it to someone who doesn't know the history of the word, and someone who doesn't have an intimate understanding of gender theory, and you've got a recipe for hundreds more asks like the one you've sent me...

I can't find a single positive reason to use the word girlboss in an empowering way, but I can find more reasons to use the word malewife in an empowering way than not to do so.

So at the very least if all you come away from this with is that I don't personally use the word malewife to uphold female social expectations in a relationship but instead I use this word to provide space for guys to be allowed to be feminine, soft, caring, emotionally present, and worth more than their monetary value, then I guess that's okay.

#long post #asks #Anon #malewife #sorry for clogging your feed #i don't have a desktop rn

[nothorses]

I'm confused about your post about trans men. You ended the post by asserting that trans men aren't "your" oppressor. If the "you" reading that post is a trans woman, that's just not true. It seems like you either you wrote that post completely ignoring the fact a trans woman might read it, or you are intentionally ignoring the ways trans men can and DO oppress trans women. I don't disagree w the rest, but activism that uplifts trans men at the expense of acknowledging trans women is not useful.

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that trans men can absolutely participate in transphobia, misogyny, and transmisogyny, in much the same way that any marginalized person can participate in systems that oppress them, or in lateral aggression against other groups. But equating this with actual oppression is incredibly reductive and can actively harm the groups in question.

Cissexism as a system is not just copy/pasted misogyny with a fun little twist. Trans women do not just suffer from Advanced Misogyny, and trans men are not the ones oppressing them. That you (and many others) believe that this is how it works shows a vital misunderstanding of cissexism as an oppressive system, transmisogyny as a form of oppression, and betrays a hatred of trans men that I regret to inform you is genuinely just dressed up transphobia.

Trans men who participate in transmisogyny are being laterally aggressive. Similarly, trans women who participate in transphobia against trans men are being laterally aggressive. Both of these things are harmful and hurtful, and acknowledging them is not “at the expense” of anyone- because both can be true at the same time.

Trying to turn trans women against trans men is a way of dividing the community, and one that only cis people benefit from- because it places the blame for trans women’s oppression on other trans people. Trans people aren’t at fault for transphobia, and trans people don’t benefit from any form of transphobia. Do you know who does benefit from it? Do you know who does posses the institutional power to oppress trans people?

Cis people. Cis people are our actual oppressors. Trans people, including trans men, do not have access to institutional power for being trans. The idea that trans men gain access to male privilege (something we can only do by being closeted, much the way trans women only have access to male privilege if they’re closeted) is a TERF talking point. There’s a reason they want you to believe it, and it’s not because it helps trans women in any way.

Stop letting cis people off the hook. They are the ones responsible for this, and they are the ones that benefit from our oppression. (Yes, even cis women.)

Anyway, since you clearly don’t value or respect transmasc voices, here’s a trans woman’s thread on the issue. (Give her a follow, too!)

#transmasc #trans men #trans #transgender #not horses #Anonymous

[khali-shabd]

Gender Theory

Readers, let us begin with a simple question- what is gender?

The Biological Theory Of Gender, and a majority of society, would say that gender is defined by biological sex, namely hormones and chromosomes. If you release estrogen and have XX chromosomes, you are female, and if you release testosterone and have XY chromosomes, you are male. However, this is an extremely flawed vision of gender for two reasons: one, that whatever proof of hormones altering gendered behaviour has been found only in lab rats1, which possibly will not exhibit the same extreme change in behaviour if the hormones were administered to them naturally in their own environment- and rats are not human- we have far too many differences as species for this study to be considered valid for homosapiens as well. And two, chromosomes are not strictly XX or XY- around 1 percent of the world population is intersex (and a similar percentage is redheaded, so its not inherently ‘anomalous’ or ‘unnatural’) , which means that they can have chromosomal variations such as XXY, X, XXXY etc, all of whom develop differently as compared to people with the traditional chromosome combinations. 

Further, there are far more things that define ‘biological sex’, namely:

chromosomes

gonads

sex hormones

internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus)

external genitalia.

Out of these, in humans, genitalia and internal reproductive anatomy can be changed without there being a significant change in gendered behavior. Sex hormones, when administered to bodies change secondary sex characteristics more than any sort of behavior; with the exception of testosterone increasing sex drive and sometimes increasing ‘ego’. Every single part of this definition of binary biological sex is challenged by the existence of intersex people, henceforth proving that sex is not binary and never has been, unfounding the existence of a sex-based gender binary in itself. Further, transgender individuals have a completely different gender identity as compared to their biological sex, and it has been scientifically proved that this is because their brains develop in the same way the brains of the children of the gender they identify with do. That essentially means that the brain of a transgender woman develops similarly to the brain of a cisgender woman, and the brain of a transgender man develops in the same way the brain of a cisgender man develops. All in all, there are far too many differences in the experience of biological sex to confine it to a binary, hence unfounding the theory that gender is based on biological sex.

Then how do we define gender?

There are a number of theories, but the most logical one at the moment would be Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity. Butler says that gender, as an abstract concept in itself, is nothing more than a performance. We ‘perform’ our gender by carrying out actions that we associate with it. They further say that this does not mean that it’s something we can stop altogether, rather something we’ve ingrained so deeply within us that it becomes a part of our identity, and it's the part of it we call gender identity. Gender, hence, is created by its own performance. Butler also implies that we do not base gender on sex, rather we define sex along the lines of established lines of binary gener, i.e. male and female- despite the fact that more than 10% of the population does not fall into this binary sex, and has some variation in their biological sex that does not ‘fit’ into either category. Gender in itself is so culturally constructed by western society that anyone who does not perform their assigned gender ‘correctly’ is punished- this applies to not only queer individuals but even men who do not ascribe to or criticise predefined ideals of masculinity. They are made social pariahs and excluded as outcasts, leaving them to find and create their own communities and safe spaces. This is shown in the way society ostracises queer-presenting individuals, makes fun of ‘soft’ men, and forcefully tries to ‘fix’ intersex children whose variations in biological sex cause no harm to them. I quote:

“Because there is neither an ‘essence’ that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis. The tacit collective agreement to perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions is obscured by the credibility of its own production. The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one’s belief in its necessity and naturalness.”

One of the criticisms of Butler’s theories is that it does not seem to apply to transgender individuals, whose innate gender identity is not the one that they have been assigned to perform at birth; whose brains develop the same way that their cisgender counterparts’ brains do from birth. Butler themselves have responded to this, saying:

“I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that. No matter whether one feels one’s gendered and sexed reality to be firmly fixed or less so, every person should have the right to determine the legal and linguistic terms of their embodied lives. So whether one wants to be free to live out a “hard-wired” sense of sex or a more fluid sense of gender, is less important than the right to be free to live it out, without discrimination, harassment, injury, pathologization or criminalization – and with full institutional and community support.”

Later on, Butler goes on to say that the main point of their theory is that identity is constructed, which means that it allows us to change how we view it as a concept. It leaves room for us to subvert gender roles, challenging the status quo on what it means to identify as someone of a particular gender, and re-structuring society such that we rally for change not along gender lines, rather on the basis of what’s right.

Further, if we combine the work of the psychologist Sigmund Freud with Butler’s theories, the latter does actually apply to transgender individuals. Freudian theory states that we internalize concepts of gender based on our parental figures at birth. That is, if you are born female, you begin to look towards the person who closest resembles your gender identity; which in this case would be your mother, to be your role model for your behavior as to how women are meant to act. Your mother would be your guide to how you perform your gender. If she crosses her legs, you cross your legs. If she dresses in a particular way, you would too, until you were exposed to the exterior world and allowed to develop your own sense of style. As such, you create your own gender identity within your mind, and perform that identity the way you have been taught to by your maternal figure. When you are transgender, you view yourself as innately as the gender you identify with, hence you base your gender identity off the parental figure of that particular gender. This means, if you are female to male trans, you would base your gender identity on your father, and accordingly perform your gender in that way.

Now the question arises: How do we create gender identity outside of gender roles? How do we identify anywhere on the gender spectrum while abandoning the performance that comes with that identity? Why is it important?

Well, the answer isn’t simple. For its importance, I allude, once again, to gender performativity theory- Butler even uses some evolutionary stances to support her views, saying that gender performance stems from gender roles which stem from the fundamental differences between the prominent male and female sex at the very beginning of evolution. Now that 'evolutionary' behaviors don't matter at this stage of societal, cultural, and psychological development, it renders gender roles and hence the performance of gender redundant. However, we still perpetuate these ideas regardless of their importance, or rather their lack of such. And in this process, we end up defining and segregating far too much on the basis of gender- from small things like friendships to even the feminist movement, which is majorly perpetuated and held up by people who identify as female. Other groups like men end up purposely excluding themselves from a movement that can benefit them as well(through deconstructing and eradicating ideas of toxic masculinity) just because of how strongly it is divided on the basis of gender lines. And as for how we create gender identity outside of gender roles; it takes a lot of work, at first, to unlearn all the biases you have internalized about what it means to be a certain gender. You have to actively work towards deconstructing what gender and gender identity means to you, and how much of it comes from societally misguided stances about the ‘role’ of a gender is. It may mean ridding yourselves of the school of thought that women belong in the kitchen and men belong in workplaces or even identifying and removing hidden biases such as those of toxic masculinity and/or toxic femininity. Lastly, it takes an understanding that often, gender expression is not the same as gender identity; and also that most gender expression is how people show how they feel the most comfortable viewing themselves. Once you’ve managed to deconstruct your biases, it’s just a matter of how you feel comfortable viewing and expressing yourself; and what label, among the myriad, you identify with the most. That would be your unique self-expression and identity.

#gender theory #gender #trans #trangender #lgbtq #judith butler #writing #essay #article #write #writers on tumblr #gender identity #theory #sociology #psychology

[faemytho]

If you're not too busy, I need some LGBTQ+ related advice. I was talking to someone earlier today, and I mentioned the topic of transgender people. I gave an example of "just because someone has the chest and (other parts) of a female doesn't automatically make them a woman", but they said it didn't make sense. They're older than me, so they know what a transvestite is, and they told me their work involves understanding brain development, but they only think of this as an opinion, (1/2)

(2/2)not an identity. I don't want to accuse them of being a t**f, but I don't know how to prove my point without simply calling it intuition. As someone who was a she/her but isn't anymore, do you know how to/if you can help me/anyone else that can have this problem? 

-

(here’s a good post that debunks the ‘gender is in the brain’ myth)

Note that I am not a professional, nor do I claim to speak for all trans people, but I am a trans person and I have a lot of experience with other trans people (I think I can count on one hand the amount of cisgender friends I have). So here’s my essay. Clowning in the notes will get you blocked on sight.

Also I’m not typically an advice blog but sure, I can answer this. Your friend actually is spouting t**f rhetoric, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a t**f. They probably genuinely do not understand the difference between sex and gender. So let me tell you, there’s a huge difference.

Gender as it pertains to our biological sex is a social construct. In other words, “sex=gender” is an incorrect formula. It’s not true.

As far as gender identity is concerned, it’s important to stress the fact that feeling an inherent sense of ‘this is incorrect’ when a trans person’s gender is associated with their birth sex.... is not an opinion. It’s not a choice a trans person just decides to make, nor is it a choice they even can make.

Thinking from this standpoint through a logical lens, if trans people could choose their genders, they likely would not exist as “trans people” if they could just choose to be cisgender. So why do so many trans people exist if it’s all just “a choice”? Do they choose to be part of an oppressed group that has no set in stone protections (in America) so they can make themselves targets of discrimination so they can wallow in self-pity about how they’ve reached rock bottom because of how discriminated against they’ve been? Why would they do that, that’s stupid. That is what makes no sense to me. It’s illogical, so why would people choose to do it?

Because it’s not a choice. Sex and gender identity are not the same; they are far from it. It has been proven before and it can be proven again.You can’t chose your sex, and you can’t choose your gender identity either.

A personal experience of mine, I used to know a trans person who encountered a xenogender label they absolutely adored. It catered directly to their special interest, they said it was a fantastic label with a beautiful flag and a beautiful definition... but it wasn’t their gender. They wanted so badly to identify as this gender but they couldn’t, because it just didn’t match their gender identity. “It’s not me, no matter how badly I want it to be.” It would be just as bad as forcing themself (a trans person) to identify as the same gender as their assigned sex at birth. It wasn’t them.

And that was that. I’ve actually encountered several labels like that myself; where I just loved them to death but I couldn’t identify as them because they weren’t me. Because it would feel wrong if I just decided, “you know what? Fuck it! I’ll use this label!” It would feel just as bad as being forced to be a gender I am not.

Would I benefit from identifying as a man? The answer is yes, I would! We live in a patriarchal society, I would reap a ton of benefits by identifying as and presenting as a man. But I don’t, because the idea of being male is inherently incorrect to me. I can’t choose it, even if I wanted to.

I love the female label. I love feminine things. I love them a lot, but I don’t love them when they’re used to refer to me. I can’t force myself to be female, nor would I want to, because it’s not what fits; it’s incorrect. It’s incongruent with me.

Here’s a roughly paraphrased transcription from one of my textbooks:

Biological sexes are the genitals and sex characteristics one is born with (when those sex characteristics may not fully match up as entirely of the male sex or entirely of the female sex, that person is considered intersex). Gender identity is defined as one's innate, inner sense of being male, female, something other, or something in-between. Gender expression is how one chooses to present themselves to themselves or others, which includes their appearance, dress, mannerisms, and speech patterns. Gender expression and gender identity do not have to match.

Here’s something you can choose: Gender expression. Dressing in drag, for example! Let’s break this down.

Transvestism is the practice of dressing in a manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. (Why do we associate clothes with specific sexes? Why have we given specific clothes a sex assignment? Clothes are clothes; they can be worn by anyone regardless of sex and it’s not going to change someone’s sex. If women can wear pants and suits, why can’t men wear skirts? It’s actually the misogyny and toxic masculinity, but that’s a whole other rabbit hole).

Your appearance, your clothes, your personality, and even the way you talk, those are all things you can consciously influence and change. Expression is something you can change, but gender identity is not. An identified woman in a suit is still a woman. An identified man in a dress is still a man.

Food for thought. An intersex person exists, and stands before you. How do you answer the question, “What’s their gender?”. It cannot be answered by applying the “sex=gender” formula. Their sex is intersex; they are not completely, entirely, or just male or female. If one is supposed to go off of biological sex, how then do you determine their gender?

Logically? The “sex=gender” formula holds no weight. It just simply isn’t true. Another example. We insist on giving non-human characters genders, even when there is no biological component to go off of.

Wall-E and Eve, for example. They may be male and female coded respectively, but they don’t have any biological sex; they’re robots! How then does the “sex=gender” formula hold up? There’s no “sex” variable to equal the “gender” variable. So then it stands to reason by this formula that as robots, they have no gender, yet we insist on calling Wall-E a boy, and Eve a girl. Why would we do that if we, hypothetically, intend to uphold the “sex=gender” formula? They have no sex, so why would we call them male or female?

Because “sex=gender” is not true. What parts you were born with do not define whatever gender you may end up being.

There is a desperate need to differentiate between the female-sex, the female-gender, the male-sex, and the male-gender. They are not co-dependent; and they can exist without “matching up”. They don’t even have to exist in a person at all; take me, I’m trans-nonbinary person and I use a ton of xenogenders, but male and female? Those aren’t me. Would identifying as one of those make my life easier? Sure would! But I refuse to live as someone I’m not; I can’t live as someone I’m not.

Your friend should also probably come to terms with the fact that there are 7 billion people on this planet. The odds of all 7 billion+ of us fitting into one of two categories? Statistically, very unrealistic. We are unique individual people, with our own experiences and our own thoughts and beliefs. Why wouldn’t our genders adhere to our individuality? Even our biological sexes don’t adhere to a binary; they live on a spectrum, and anything within that spectrum isn’t entirely male or entirely female! Our sexes are as individual as each of us.

My experiences with my body, and my gender, are going to be different than anyone else who may even use the same label as I do! That’s just how it is. Our sex does not define our gender. Our gender identities cannot be chosen. We are who we are, and that in itself is pretty unique.

#queer stuff #queer support #fae rants #fae rambles #ask #anonymous

[self-loving-vampire]

@ateacabrona​ replying to the post here because the thread has gotten obnoxiously long. I will also be replying in English for the benefit of all the monolingual readers here.

1- All the stuff about pregnancy legislation is honestly irrelevant. Trans people are doing absolutely nothing to have people fired for their jobs for getting pregnant and those laws do not exist in relation to trans people in the least.

2- The idea that there is no male sexual mutilation is not only irrelevant, it is also just... more of a matter of degree than anything. I don’t think it is principled to make an exception to the definition based on whether or not reducing pleasure is the goal. Circumcision can reduce sensitivity too, so even by that definition none of this makes any sense. Where is any of this even going?

3- Then you talk about how the people most at risk of violent crimes are cis men. While I don’t necessarily disagree with this, I think it definitely depends on the location and whether or not someone is visibly trans. As noted previously, trans people who suffer deadly crimes are also not only often misreported as cis people by authorities and families but also have more reluctance to report to the police than cis men typically do.

4- You say that if laws that “protect” people from bathroom rapists are useless for that purpose then they should also not stop trans people from using the same bathrooms if they want to. I don’t know what your argument for claiming this is because you don’t actually make one, you just claim it as fact even though you clearly have not considered how an actual trans person might negotiate these laws relative to the type of person who was planning to commit serious sexual crimes.

It is a completely different mindset. One of these two categories of people was already planning to break the law in an even more significant way, the other one just wants to use the bathroom.

We also know from statistics that the bathroom “issue” is not actually much of an issue because large parts of the world already let trans people use whatever bathroom they want and are not more unsafe for it.

What TERFs advocate is really to ban people from facilities they already use based on conservative stereotypes about them all being essentially evil (you know, same thing they say about all minorities).

5- The point is that intersex people like Caster Semenya should compete. Wherever I looked it was primarily trans people who rallied behind her while many TERFs did the exact opposite, talking about Semenya almost exactly like they talk about trans people.

6- I don’t know why you are elevating Caitlyn Jenner as an authority here, seeing that not only does she consistently have stupid takes but also did not start HRT until after competing. 

Note that none of this addresses the point I made earlier: Even if we assume that trans people retain some advantage, why single out those advantages specifically when literally anyone competing in high-level sports is going to have some inborn biological advantage anyway? 

Like, you are aware that pretty much every elite athlete has that, right? In fact, when you look at it statistically trans people are actually underrepresented in things like the Olympics.

7- I am actually kind of stunned by the next part. You post a study that was widely misrepresented to say things it did not actually say and which the author herself debunked TERF readings of, then when this is brought to your attention you go “Yeah I already knew that” and assert that even though the study you posted did not actually say this trans women still are dangerous and violent.

Like, how do you even reach this point? How do you think “The study I posted did not support me at all and said trans people are not actually more violent but I’m still going to say they’re more violent” is a remotely strong position and not just an admission of bias?

At what point do you just admit that you have fallen for conservative lies instead of immediately jumping to more conservative lies?

8- Yes, I do in fact think that an ideology that recycles republican rhetoric, cooperates with the religious right, and disseminates explicitly antisemitic conspiracy theories is much closer to conservatism than a demographic of people where some of its members are conservative (which is literally all demographics).

Seen below: Antisemitic TERF Jennifer Bilek sharing neo-nazi conspiracy theories.

Jennifer Bilek is extreme, but not fringe. She is quoted by prominent TERFs ranging from Julie Bindel to Transgender Trend and the LGB Alliance.

9- How did you get to the end of the article you posted, see this, and not have alarm bells ringing inside your head? 

Or the fact that you are citing a right-wing news propaganda site that posts about how climate change is fake or how discriminating against gay people and not getting vaccinated should be a religious freedom?

(It’s actually kind of ironic how while trying to prove that trans people are the real conservatives TERFs so often end up posting right-wing propaganda.)

Surprise: This seems to be yet another scientist who supports trans rights (you can easily see her feelings on the matter on twitter) whose findings are being misreported by conservatives and you fell for it too.

Even the article you posted notes that these results are a surprising anomaly that did not actually match voting patterns:

The study itself says this, by the way.

The study also notes this regarding trans women:

Trans people do not identify as non-liberal because they would rather identify as conservatives, it is not a binary like that. They seem to largely just dislike both parties (and empirically still primarily voted for Hillary Clinton shortly before this study).

By the way, here’s the author of the study, she doesn’t seem to like TERFs either:

10- Iran is not a good argument for anything, considering that it is both unique in the entire world and still a pretty bad place for trans people. Like, even the most basic research can tell you that.

It is downright dishonest how a lot of TERFs paint it as a place where trans people are somehow actually supported by the ultra-conservative government. Many are outright kicked out of the house when they come out and socially marginalized, they live in scarcity and many become homeless.

Saying trans people are in any way accepted in Iran makes as much sense as saying that lesbians are. After all, they only get lashings rather than the death penalty (as gay men do).

It sounds like trans people there are medically recognized, but not actually protected in any practical legal or social sense.

11- “And even if those women were allied with conservatives I don’t blame them.”

Thanks for the honesty I suppose. Now think about:

What the conservatives might be getting out of that.

What it means about the priorities of the women doing this if they are willing to discard all their values for the sake of making life harder for trans women even if it means setting legal precedents that will be used against them (as with the Keira Bell case).

Your final score is 2/10. You really should know better than to fall for fascist lies by now. 

I need you to understand that these people lie constantly and you need to double-check what they post rather than just uncritically accepting it.

Especially if they are forced to add a note about how the author of the study disagrees with how they are representing her findings.

#I am seriously wondering how you looked at that #and then thought it was still worth posting #especially considering what kind of publication was posting it #long post #transphobia #terf

[carpathxanridge]

im so torn between deep empathy for elliot page and... continued disappointment. i want her to be happy with transition, i really do, but she looks pained. i couldn’t read that interview and look at those photos without feeling a deep sense of turmoil, especially when the article discussed her early acting career and discomfort with being sexualized and forced to be feminine. that breaks my heart because i get it, really. feeling like your body isn’t your own, being sexually harassed and objectified all while dealing with internalized and external homophobia... i can’t even imagine how much her dysphoria was exacerbated by working in such a misogynistic industry, where her body was a product for consumption in a somewhat literal sense.

but there comes a point where i have to say... i feel for her, i really really hope she’s okay, but the way she’s using her platform is unacceptable. “Many of the political attacks on trans people—whether it is a mandate that bathroom use be determined by birth sex, a blanket ban on medical interventions for trans kids or the suggestion that trans men are simply wayward women beguiled by male privilege—carry the same subtext: that trans people are mistaken about who they are. ‘We know who we are,’ Page says. ‘People cling to these firm ideas [about gender] because it makes people feel safe. But if we could just celebrate all the wonderful complexities of people, the world would be such a better place.’” it’s entirely dishonest in its framing of these issues. for example, the part about her wanting to play in boys’ sports as a kid... does she not understand that it was fair and acceptable because she’s female? like oh my god there is a difference between ‘playing up’— in age or in sex division— and playing down which is not allowed for a reason. fuck, my childhood soccer team (which i was already playing up by a year in) occasionally arranged to play against boys’ teams, or girls’ teams two years older. and my sister played baseball in a boys’ league because she didn’t want to play softball. those situations are completely different from males playing in women’s and girls’ leagues where they have a clear unfair advantage, and u have to be an idiot to compare the experiences.

and then the suicide guilting part of the interview... what happened to telling queer youth “it gets better?” instead you’re creating an alarmist narrative that trans people will be inevitably driven to suicide if they can’t medically transition. and it’s so fucked when you know statistically that there’s no real evidence that medical transition reduces suicidality. but most random people reading this in time don’t know that, all they hear is “trans people r killing themselves and we can help them by allowing them to transition!” because the argument is presented in this way, there’s no room for thought to whether any of this is evidence based treatment. no recognition to many trans and detrans people alike speaking out against the negative health effects, no consideration of who profits off of the medicalization of gender nonconformity, no skepticism or desire to protect trans people from medical abuse. and then the trans kids argument... that argument alone is so manipulative and misrepresented that i can’t give the benefit of the doubt that elliot is saying all this in good faith, i can’t help but wonder what imperative has driven her to speak so strongly and without nuance on this issue.

and then you frame acceptance of gender identity as accepting human complexity?? when gender critical feminists recognize that all people are complex and don’t fit into sex-based stereotypes. we aren’t the ones trying to put people in boxes. and no, i don’t think you’re “mistaken about who you are,” elliot. in fact, i hope you’re happy with transition and don’t come to regret it, just as i hope the same for all my trans friends. i just don’t believe that your own identity and self-conception should precede my right to talk about and name sex-based oppression, should precede the rights of all women and girls to safety, privacy, bodily autonomy. i reject the idea that having clear definitions of sex and sexuality are somehow clinging to outdated ideas. i believe that the desire for legal and ideological clarity isn’t a meaningless pursuit. and you’d realize that radical feminists’ ideas about gender are actually not “rigid” at all if you listened to what we are saying. we’re saying you can do what you want, express yourself how you want, present socially as a man and ask for your dysphoria to be accommodated interpersonally... all while being female, while being a woman.

i’m really sad that elliot’s realty causes her so much pain. i wish her healing and i hope that the choices she’s made will bring her happiness and comfort and relief. and health! i wish her wellbeing, both physical and mental. and i wish the same for all trans people. but i think we can balance those wishes with acceptance of the reality of biological sex.

also it should go without saying not to mock a gnc woman’s appearance jesus fuck. if you think her haircut looks like a little boy, think about the fact that a lot of butch lesbians have faced the same mockery. ive literally been insulted in the exact same way by homophobic bullies in high school lmaoo. when you mock someone for their appearance, even if you think they deserve it or aren’t impacted by it because of their celebrity status, you’re also mocking all the people reading it who share those traits (e.g. gender nonconformity.) and if you’re saying she looks emaciated and sick and speculating disordered eating... literally don’t. like i get it bc seeing her photos i thought she didn’t look at all healthy or happy and it made my heart break for her. but jesus fuck don’t speculate about people’s bodies and eating behaviors, especially vulnerable dysphoric women’s.

#sorry for the rant #maybe don’t reblog lol #i just had a lot of thoughts on this #the lack of empathy from some radfems toward her is really upsetting #but i also really understand the frustration because christ #what a difficult read

[shakespeareintellectualbadass]

http://andthenshesaid.co.uk/expertsofourownexperience/queer

Feels weird to advertise a blog on a blog, but I'm writing a series called Experts of Our Own Experience around pieces of my personal experience of life - being neurodivergent, dealing with depression and anxiety and an eating disorder, and most recently, being visibly queer for the first time in my life. I've learned more about myself from hearing others talk about their experiences, and I'm a big believer in learning about experiences other than your own, so whether any of these things apply to you or not, maybe you'll find something connective.

If you're interested, check it out, lmk if you have thoughts ✌

I’ve known I’m not straight since I was seventeen.

I went to all-girls school for fourteen years, from age four to eighteen. All my friends were female until I got to college. For most of my youth I was more consumed by the romantic stories my imagination conjured up, and generally those stories starred princes rather than princesses. I never spent any time overanalyzing it because it never felt wrong, to imagine either but focus more on boys.

And yeah, I’m definitely attracted to men. I obsessed over the boys we met at parties in high school like my friends did. I enjoy flirting with and dating men (most of the time…). I have a longstanding, embarrassingly strong celebrity crush on Jensen Ackles (like full blush, swooping in my stomach listening to him sing or when he winks at the camera). I remember one particular boy who my best friend and I fought over for about an hour at a friend’s quinceañera freshman year (that might be the most heated fight we’ve ever had and we’d only met him at that party, which is ridiculous). I also had really intense female friendships I didn’t think anything of. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see how those friendships with girls I liked and admired - the really earnest ones where I’d go out of my way to do things for them and be around them because I just really want her to want to be my friend - were actually crushes. I’m a people pleaser (with people I care about anyway), but I recognize that higher intensity now that I’ve been through more serious relationships. Definitely bisexual.

It clicked in the autumn of senior year, when I fell for one of my friends from school. We spent a few months pining and then dated for about half a year (though we were both dealing with shitty mental health struggles at the time and were overall not very good for each other) and broke up right before I graduated. All our friends knew we were together, as did my family and probably hers and probably quite a few more people than we knew. What can I say, I’ve never been known for my subtlety, especially when romantic interest is involved.

But right now is the first time I’ve been obviously queer. Visibly, aesthetically queer in how I choose to present myself.

I’ve easily passed for straight all my life. I’ve had long hair and lengthened my eyelashes with coats of mascara, worn low cut tops and tall heels and tight jeans. I’ve flirted with men more than women and leaned into my soft, feminine energy more than my assertive, masculine energy.

But I’ve never had to adjust to being bisexual, to accept that about myself. I never worried about what my parents would think. I know I’m enormously lucky because of that. That said, there’s a difference between coming to terms with being bisexual and being comfortable presenting as queer. My parents are both artists; they both went to college for performance (acting for mum, singing for dad) and are wonderfully open minded and raised me with that same open-mindedness. I don’t think I ever actually came out to them. I could tell they knew about my interest in my high school girlfriend, so I just started talking about it, and that was that. My whole extended family is very accepting, and there are other LGBTQ+ members of the family. One of my cousins is trans and bi; we make a lot of jokes about being the gay cousin (“every family has a gay cousin; if yours doesn’t, you’re the gay cousin” “but if I’m the gay cousin, and you’re the gay cousin, who’s flying the plane?”). My dad’s mom and her partner have been affectionately dubbed The Grandmas for my whole life. Grandma Natalie is as much my grandparent as Grandma Gayle, though we’re not related by blood. I don’t know how many members of my family know I’m queer - I’ve never specifically come out to any of them either - but I don’t worry about it. It’ll become obvious at some point, or I’ll drop it in conversation like I do so often now.

It does vary, how out I am - in high school I was comfortable with it in my personal life, but I never considered joining the LGBTQ+ club - and it’s been different when I’m in a relationship. Both my long term boyfriends were queer/on the bisexuality spectrum, but we presented like a heterosexual couple so never had to worry about coming out. While my high school girlfriend and I weren’t subtle, we also weren’t fully out as a couple. Her family was religious and she was worried about their reaction. On top of that, we were both fairly femme, and in Catholic school the general assumption is that everyone is straight. When I got to college, I only dated men. Part of that was residual fear left over from how badly that high school relationship ended. Part of it was I went to a Catholic university (seriously, how did I spend eighteen years in Catholic institutions when I’ve never been Catholic). A lot of it was compulsive heterosexuality - something queer women fall into a lot because our society is set up with men as the be all and end all (“how could anyone not be attracted to men?” “Of course the ultimate happy ending is settling down with a man...”). A lot of it was how much more I was around men. For the first time, there was a lot of choice, which was an exciting prospect. Even when I wasn’t in a serious relationship, I tended to only focus on men as romantic prospects.

Again, with the benefit of hindsight, I can see how much I’ve been and still am guided by that ingrained need for male attention and validation. It’s also easier to pick up men than women - there’s no is she flirting or is she just friendly to deal with – because men and women are socialized so differently that men don’t usually gush and compliment women they’ve just met in the same way that women do. Maybe it’s just easier to assume men are flirting because of the stereotype that men always want to get laid. Maybe it’s scarier to flirt with women. Maybe both. It’s certainly possible that’s my own projection rather than fact. That said, I did once have a two hour conversation with a lady in a shop during which we effusively complimented each other multiple times, and I have no idea if she was flirting with me or if she was just nice. Girls in bar bathrooms consistently hype each other up without ever exchanging names. It’s wonderful, but it does make things a little foggy when one is trying to flirt with a lady.

Anyway - I was talking about being obviously queer for the first time. It’s odd because I’m very comfortable talking about being bisexual. I bring it up in conversation easily. I post about it for pride. I talk about it a lot on my podcast. I’ve been comfortable with it since I recognized it - I have a wonderfully supportive family, and accepting that part of myself came easily. Presenting it to the world aesthetically is different - more personal, more vulnerable. Even writing about it here, thinking of you reading this, I feel more shy than I would were we face to face. While I didn’t spend any time reassessing my personality when I realized I’m bi, I’m just now recognizing that I do have internalized biphobia and compulsive heterosexuality I need to work through. I think the difference right now is about presentation, that I’ve never felt like I looked bisexual. Which is silly, right? As much as we talk about gaydar and queer trends (bisexuals cuff their jeans, etc), both within the LGBTQ+ community and out, you can’t actually tell anyone’s sexual orientation from their appearance. Queer people just tend to be more adventurous with their self-expression, perhaps because they’ve spent time at one point or another repressing who they are. Perhaps there’s just a joy in exploring something different, that makes you stand out. I don’t know - that’s true for me, though I’m only just starting to experiment myself, and I’m sure it’s different for everyone. I certainly don’t know if I would experiment with my style in the same way if I was straight, having never been straight.

My style has slid less feminine during this year of lockdown. Part of it is that I’m rarely going anywhere, and when I am, I’m walking a lot, so sneakers are a must. I exercise a lot more now, so often when I leave the house, it’s for a workout in a park and I’m dressed in leggings and a sweatshirt. I’ve gravitated toward looser trousers for the last year and a half or so; after years of skinny jeans, I’m obsessed with how comfortable they are. Now that it’s winter, I’m more focused on being warm and comfy than being fashionable. Also, I sort of feel like any moment an apocalypse movie is going to start and I need to be dressed to live in the woods. This added up into a vibe more butch than I’m used to, but with my hair longer than it had been in years, I didn’t really notice.

And then I chopped all my hair off. Like actually all off. A full pixie cut, shorter than I’ve ever gone.

Leading up to it, I guessed I was going to want to lean more into feminine fashion again to balance the cropped cut. I like being feminine and I’m in no hurry to give it up. I planned to pull out my comfy knit pencil skirts and my heeled ankle boots. I expected to forget about my new habit of dressing like I live in the woods. That hasn’t really happened. I’ve still been dressing for comfort, and my style choices have gravitated more toward sweater vests and flare trousers. Both Harry Styles and Phoebe Waller-Bridge in the “Golden” music video. The other day I caught sight of myself in a window and needed a moment to recognize myself: the combination of loose jeans, sweatshirt, raincoat, sneakers, and short hair just didn’t feel like the me I remembered. I looked at myself and didn’t see the femme, straight passing person I’ve looked like for most of my adult life. Let me be clear - I am by no means saying that looking obviously queer is a bad thing. It’s new to me, but I’m rediscovering myself.  I still saw me - and that’s key, that this haircut has always felt like me - but a different me than I’m used to seeing in the mirror.

I have a lot of affection for this new aesthetically masculine and feminine mix, and the other day, stuck in the house at the beginning of lockdown no.3, I felt the urge to dress up a little. I put on lipstick for the first time since May, pulled out a plunge bodysuit and a pair of one-of-a-kind flare jeans I found in a vintage shop on Brick Lane the other week (looser jeans are a masculine leaning I’m embracing wholeheartedly). I decked out my fingers in rings and pulled out my wire-rimmed blue light glasses (my eyesight is so bad that my actual glasses look like something from the wardrobe of a nerd from a 1980s movie, so I stick with contacts). I snapped this photo, just to see the full effect as I no longer have a full-length mirror, and - bam.

I love how I look. I’m obsessed with my hair, with the bright red lines of the bodysuit (and isn’t me in a bright color shocking enough!). I love the jeans, love that they’re a little too big in the waist and just keep flowing out from there, a feminine line in a masculine fabric. I love the wire rim glasses (even if I do look like my dad in the 80s). I love the muscle I can see in my arms from months of pushups and calisthenics. I love how much space I take up, both physically and just in my presence. I am feminine and masculine. I am impossible to miss. Once, even a year ago, that would’ve been stressful. Now, I feel like shouting from the rooftops. This is me.

It’s gone up on Instagram. It’s my new profile picture on various apps. The only caption has been a peace sign emoji - a joke within the LGBTQ+ community about how bisexual people never know what to do with our hands (“point a camera at a bisexual and see how long it takes them to flash a peace sign or finger guns”). It’s a very different vibe from my last profile photo - almost two years ago I smiled at my friend behind the camera from a flowering yellow bush as I watched my last relationship coming to an end.

I keep coming back to how much it is different. This is a change - not of who I am, but of how I reflect it to the world. Proud and excited as I am, and as much as I want to care only for what I think, the fear of rejection lingers. The fear that my friends’ love isn’t malleable and won’t fit this new me anymore. The yearning for the people I love and admire to be proud of me. And on top of that, I wonder how I am different, how my change in appearance reflects an inner shift. How it necessitates it. I’ve always felt the inner shone through to the outer - now that I’m changing the outer, does that come from a shift I’ve already made or is there one still to make? Do I have to act more queer because I look it? What do I feel I need to prove?

Maybe I’ve spoken so much and so easily about my sexuality because I knew it wasn’t visible. Now it’s far more clear, and I feel both more confident and shy. Who is this woman who wears red and casually takes up space? I know her, have seen her in flashes, but this is the first time she is stepping out so boldly. That’s it: I am bold in a way I haven’t felt before. I know, logically, that I have been (again, I’ve never been known for subtlety), but not so consciously. Not with so much intention behind my choice. Some boldness comes so easily I never think of it, but this - this was like bursting out of water for that first breath of air. Natural, intuitive, but not easy.

All this comes in the middle of a period of great change in my life. I’m moving back to my home country after living in London for almost three years, back to my parents’ house after living alone for a year during this pandemic. I’m reconsidering everything I want to spend the next few years doing, much less the rest of my life. I’m trying to figure out how to fund seeing the world and how to organize running a podcast with guests from everywhere I go. I’m consciously focusing on myself and what I want rather than delaying or sacrificing my goals for anybody else. I’m putting off putting down roots for a bit and relying on the knowledge my family is there to come back to. My future see-saws between the safety of family and the unquestionable boldness of adventure.

There is an apprehension that comes with change, an acknowledgment that I am growing and becoming something new, something that is always myself though I did not know it was there. It is freeing and exhilarating and terrifying, growing. Like jumping off a cliff, I have to squeeze my hands into fists and tighten my core and rely on the knowledge that the water below will catch me, that I will catch me, so that I can enjoy the fleeting moment of flying into something new.

#selfpost #experts of our own experience #and then she said #queer #lgbtq+

[butyouvealwaysbeenthecaretaker]

The other problem is that Halberstam has been doing this for years, without much reflection. Here’s part of Female Masculinity:

So to just get a sense of timeline, she wrote an essay in 1994 which was badly received by trans people...kind of re-iterates it in 1998 for this book...and is still doing it in 2018...

You can see at once, I think, why those questions would not have been well received.

Why would you write about a topic without first undertaking a fact-finding ethnography of that population? Why would you persist in writing about trans people if you didn’t understand why “gender is a social construct” was enough to prevent physical transition from occuring? Why would you attempt to write about trans people as a metaphor without engaging with their material experiences? Why was my “attempt to ask discursive questions” received as rude?

“...dissolution of gender fictions that is so fascinating”

What’s funny about this to me is that I haven’t read Female Masculinity in 10 years, but this is pretty much what I just said about Trans. Not really interested in actual trans people, weirdly focused on representations rather than reality, worryingly unaware of “actual transgender politics”.

I feel for Halberstam in a sense of, trying to articulate this genderqueerish middle space before there were really words for it; but at the same time, this doesn’t excuse persisting in speaking as a trans spoke-person while ignoring critique from other trans people

“Needless to say, I acknowledge your disagreement, but I’m going to plough on anyway because I’m sure if you really listen to me this time, you’ll agree that lesbian women and transgender men really do have the same subjective experiences”

Halberstam is willfully blind to the experiences of transsexual men because, basically, that narrative doesn’t serve him. After a while, it’s like - go away and leave us alone. Comments on how guides to pass as male are regressive, because they suggest a normative appearance and steer people away from looking like butches; how a female interviewer finding a focus group of trans men charming and handsome is a problem because she would not, of course, have found butch masculinity charming or praiseworthy. My attempt to live happily and with contentment has nothing to do with butches, either to their benefit or their detriment; it’s simply not on my radar as interesting or a priority. I couldn’t care less whether or not butchness is a stable female category or not.

& so many of his ideas have something to them - ultimately, genderqueer femaleish masculinity is a thing worth exploring - and could be saved if he merely took the experience of binary transgender men seriously and at their own word, which he persistently refuses to. You can’t start a theory by repeatedly grouping people together who refuse that categorisation, and then get angry at them for understanding themselves in a way that does not fit.

Can’t imagine why the transgender community of 1994 did not take well to Halberstam’s theory.

and this is what I mean by writing from a place of privilege, because while neither cis nor trans is a stable and uncomplex term to describe Halberstam’s gender position - what IS stable is that she’s a tenured professor and published author, and the critiques from entire FTM communities haven’t put any kind of dent in her career.

And you’d think that the population you are writing about vocally disagreeing with your stance would change how your work is received, or cause you to rethink; neither has occurred. In fact, this kind of casual disregard for trans men in particular is endemic in queer/feminist theory; trans women, at least, have broken through to speak with their own voice; but trans men, on the whole, are still being spoken about.

For whatever reason, Halberstam has maintained unquestioned access to institutional power; and it’s a little ungenerous to call that cis privilege, but on the other hand, I’m uncertain of what else you would call it.

#the trans tag

[feminetflix]

De atracos y ab*rtos - Of heists and ab*rtions or How women are being robbed.

⚠️ this contains major spoilers for LA CASA DE PAPEL / MONEY HEIST season 1, specifically episode 3!

Personally, I have experienced the series la casa de papel (original title) or money heist as progressive, realistic and not afraid to deal with certain topics like domestic violence which I will be commenting on in posts yet to be published, female trans representation and occasionally peppered with numerous feminist parentheses (see characters like Nairobi and dialogues around/involving her opinion).

However, there are certain aspects I did not enjoy to watch / do not support. That is normal and every show has its flaws, those resulting all the more dangerous however, as money heist is not just any show. The series is thanks to its popularity by now a relevant aspect of people’s opinion-forming and plays into the perception of many people all around the world, coming from different cultures and having experienced all kinds of upbringing. The target audience is not specified, yet crime drama (the genre) is estimated to target both females and males aged 15-40 years old. Means, also targeting minors and adolescents. Again, all cultures / religions / races / classes etc etc included.

I am fully aware that this kind of range was not expected and therefore not taken into account by producers, talking about the first two seasons that were solely meant for a Spanish audience, not an international one. (The series was initially intended as a limited series to be told in two parts. It had its original run of 15 episodes on Spanish network Antena 3 from 2 May 2017 through 23 November 2017. Netflix acquired global streaming rights in late 2017). The analysed / discussed scene is indeed part of this maybe not so carefully crafted content. Cough.

Let’s get right into it.

Characters interacting: Mónica Gaztambide (Esther Acebo), one of the hostages who was also Arturo Román's secretary and introduced as his mistress and “Denver” (Jaime Lorente), one of the robbers participating in the heist [Denver is an alias, all robbers being referred to with city names]

Context: Mónica has an affair with Arturo Román (Enrique Arce) -hostage and former Director of the Royal Mint of Spain- which leads to an unwanted pregnancy. Numerous factors influence her (for now) final decision: she doesn’t want the child. Shortly after, the robbery unfolds and she’s taken hostage among other people. She then requests an ab*rtion pill, which at some point arrives in the mint alongside other medical supplies. The scene analysed: one of the robbers (Denver) is supposed to hand her mentioned ab*rtion pill. Before that he holds an emotional speech on the subject, morally risen forefinger, accusations and tears included.

Here the dialogue without comments:

————Now my opinion / the actual post:

“You need money, right?” One might think that the amount of money seen in this frame (20.000,-€ approx. $21.701,50 according to Denver) is an exaggerated, way too generous gesture. Let me tell you, it is not.

According to a 2017 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child from birth [to] age 17 is $233,610. If that made your heart skip a beat, take a deep breath before you read on. Incorporating inflation costs, it will be more like $284,570. Since that’s based on 2015 numbers, we can expect the cost will be even higher, babies born since then.

[…] This average includes everything from housing, food and transportation to healthcare, education and childcare to clothing, personal care items and entertainment.

Let me now remind you that Mónica is a secretary, so she likely earns (barely) enough money to be financially independent herself (taking into account that she lives near or maybe even in Madrid, her workplace, the Royal Mint situated there, so housing alone is hella expensive) and can’t really expect reliable support coming from the potential child’s father, Arturo Román, either, who initially denied support himself, their relationship a secret to the family and wife he already has. Phew.

Btw: A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from ab*rtion clinics […] were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain ab*rtions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had ab*rtions.

“Enough to get the kid diapers until he graduates.” The problem or let’s say points raised above are now also being ridiculed or not taken seriously to say the least.

She takes the money, sticking to her decision however. “So, what’s the problem?” Or “Then, what is it?” A million additional things, Denver, believe it or not a potential child is a big deal. That and none of your business.

Also, see the reaction? How he stares at her in disbelief (and possibly even disgust, see the risen corner of his lips?). How he looks at her as if she were heartless, selfish, a monster – the picture often painted in this debate when it comes to women who decide to terminate a pregnancy. How he doesn’t respect her “no, thanks” and continues. Continues influencing her, later on even starts to mansplain his way into her stone cold heart. Okay, then let me continue as well.

“That he’ll f*ck up your life? […] Your son. Better to have your life f*cked up by your son than any of these sons of b*tches. Or me.” Call it ‘f*ck up’ or not – that is entirely her perception, her decision and I’d dare to say…she knows best.

First, because regardless of the fact that she is a woman and you are not – well it is indeed her life and, uhm, excuse me Denver, you’re no sibling, no friend, no acquaintance, quite the contrary, you have known her for what? Three minutes and already jump to conclusions?

Take the privilege of explaining her how a child would f*ck or not f*ck up her life?!!

Secondly, what makes him assume the gender of this cluster of cells, this potential future life, this basis for a potential life that may later on develop into a life (it is not a walking talking baby boy already, my friend!).

Personhood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception.

Does it provide a smooth transition for that awfully funny and figurative “son” – “sons of b*tches” (org. Hijo – hijos de p*ta) line or is it literal propaganda?

Why does he say “your son”, although he cannot possibly know? I’ll tell you. In order to distract the audience from the fact that he is referring to a pea-sized basis for a potential life by painting the picture of an already existing male human being. Mónica, do you really want to murder your son? Mónica, does that cute little doe eyed baby boy really f*ck up your life? Yeah, propaganda at its best.

Also, another example for ridiculing the point “a child would destroy my life” by comparing an unwanted pregnancy to a literal robbery at gun point. Great one.

“This f*cks your life up. A kid doesn’t.” Do you see that raised gun, that is quite literally an extension of a raised index finger? Wow, the drama. On a different note, did you notice the symbolism? A weapon stands for death, murder and guess what is also often equated with murder.

“How do you know what f*cks up my life? What do you know?” Finally. Exactly. He doesn’t know her, like at all. He doesn’t know her situation and no, he’s also not the pregnant one or anyone who would have to worry about that.

What do you answer to that, hmm? Let’s make this whole dispute even more emotional and dramatic. That ‘a cute little son isn’t as bad as a robbery’ didn’t convince her?

Let’s try with an extraordinary f*cked up and tragic life story, nobody asked for. Its goal? Showing the oblivious, naive, little secretary what real ‘f*ck up’ means, despite the evident lack of any sort of knowledge when it comes to her life (story). Again, conclusion-jumping and wallowing in prejudice at its best.

Have a look at his expression while ‘lecturing’ her. How disrespectful, how belittling. ‘Oh please, what do you know about life?’. On a wider scale: ‘How could we possibly trust women to rationally and with a clear conscience decide such things for themselves – concerning life and death, if they have not the slightest idea, living in their bubble of security and stability and no real problems’ etc. This is everything but taking women and their reasoning abilities, their judgement seriously.

“My mother was going to ab*rt me.” Now the audience doesn’t only have the mental image of a potential cute little son, it is furthermore provided with the image of a living, breathing human being standing right in front of them. Just look at him and his pleading puppy dog eyes. No actual child actor could have done it better.

Thank god she did not go through with the ab*rtion, right? Oh thank god she was not allowed to.

Taking advantage of this frame to remind you of the fact that we are still talking about a POTENTIAL future life, not an existing one that is nevertheless put above the mother’s already existing life in this impudent, low and unfair debate.

“But first…she inhaled the heroin she had to sell to be able to pay for the ab*rtion. Then she was caught by the police. Between jail, drugs and the police, I was born. What do you know?”

1)Adding even more emotions, subtle accusations and drama to that oh so rational dispute? Check. Making his situation seem two thousand times worse than hers (which he, again, has no clue about)? Check. Subconsciously painting the picture of reckless, irresponsible drug addicts/ “lowlifes” or generally female members of “society’s margins” usually being the ones to abort and make it seem like the state’s or whoever’s responsibility to prevent them from deciding for themselves? Check.

2) Then he even tears her valid ‘what do you know (about my life)’ out of the initial context of being confronted with endless assumptions and prejudice and blows it way out of proportion in order to demonstrate the insignificance of … everything concerning her? Her background, her life, her reasons. Everything.

And FINALLY *drum rolls* the wild theories and hypotheses and presumptions she was dying to hear because since he, I repeat for the twelfth time, has no actual clue about her life, let’s make up one.

“Because it seems that you don’t have a very exciting job. And maybe outside of work your life is not that great either. Or what is it that you do? ‘Kilates’? And Friday night drinks, right? What a f*cking drag. Another plan ruined by the kid[…]” That and the entire following paragraph. Wow. All accusations thrown at women who decide to abort in one.

Because OF COURSE a middle aged, down to earth, intelligent, responsible woman like Mónica Gaztambide has no other reason for terminating a pregnancy than not being able to drink alcoholic beverages or party anymore. Because OF COURSE it is valid to assume a woman or any person for that matter one has known for half an hour and interacted with for literal five minutes has a boring enough life that would not be affected in any way by a pregnancy, birth and ultimately being forced to raise an unwanted child. Because OF COURSE Denver would know how much a pregnancy can affect somebody, especially one that is forced upon a person. Quite frankly he has no idea and no right. The audacity.

“Do [your friends who are also mothers] seem f*cked up? / Do their lives look f*cked up? No, right?” Because you know best. Not only regarding her life but on top of that also that of her friends. Because those pregnancies or motherhood in general did under no circumstances end a career or prevent them from pursuing one in the first place or cause the end of a relationship or force them to stay in a toxic or even abusive relationship or change their financial situation completely or rob them of their fragile financial independence and/or free time altogether or cause any (mental) health complications or … you get the point. Oh, and because their situations are completely identical to Mónica’s situation, that is additionally not half as dramatic as your life story. Of course, Denver.

Seeing the ‘rational’ argument doesn’t really work, let’s add yet another dramatic, emotional rhetorical question. As a precaution.

“Do you know how much a child can love you?”

How could she, being the heartless, cruel, selfish, irresponsible, ridiculous and impulsive murderess you’re ‘exposing’ her as?

⚠️ Another spoiler warning for seasons 3 and 4 and still 1.

Would Cincinnati - that’s her sons actual name, not alias – really love her like he does now?

Friendly reminder: his biological father (Arturo Román) let her know - right from the start - that he wouldn’t take on any responsibility whatsoever, regardless of his later statements about doing so. Why those statements don’t matter? Despite his awareness of her state, despite knowing she was pregnant he shortly after urges her on to steal the cellphone she is caught with right after the analysed scene, ready to risk her life and the potential life of his unborn child. Literally, because as soon as she is caught with it, Berlín orders Denver to execute her.

So to those of you who will now say “but- but Cincinnati is okay and has an amazing life and does love her” etc etc, first think certain things through. If Denver wouldn’t have spared her, if she didn’t just happen to get together with him and if the heist didn’t just happen to work out like that, what then?

Cincinnati would have a different name. What else? Well for one, he wouldn’t have a father (that is now Denver) like at all, resulting in possible daddy issues / issues in general. How I know Arturo, the biological father, wouldn’t be there for them, wouldn’t fulfill all his empty promises?

Did he canonically care about his son? Was he devastated that he was not given the possibility to see him or did he instead focus on that random book of his and his speeches about heroism and honour and so on? If he wouldn’t have called his wife by his mistress’s name and through that expose himself, if his family wouldn’t have left him all alone, don’t you think he would stick to them? Just to paint a picture of who the father is and how he behaves and what we can assume from that behaviour. So the probability was high she would’ve been left alone with I quote “all the love” and of course all the responsibility. It’s a thing, Denver.

Secondly, if she didn’t just happen to turn into a millionaire thanks to the heist working out, would she really be able to provide a life for Cincinnati? Would she really be able to remain financially independent? Would her life at her son’s side really be all peace and harmony if she wouldn’t just so happen to be able to live from heist money?

So many coincidences, so many risks and no security. Can we really blame her? Do we have the right?

With these questions I will end this seemingly endless post and leave you to think about it, reflect certain things and – if you want to – share your opinion(s) with me. Please don’t hesitate to do so, as long as those contain rational arguments and most importantly respect. Thank you for reading!

(Also: sorry for the extensive censoring, I had to, otherwise it wouldn’t appear in the tags.)

#la casa de papel #lcdp #money heist #choice feminism #why we need feminism

[transstudiesarchive]

On Contrapoints, Yekaterina P

Contrapoint is a Baltimore based youtuber who is a part of what is sometimes called ‘Bread Tube’, which is leftist and creates content aimed at education and leftist ideas. Contrapoints name is Natalie Wynn she is a Trans woman who has publicly transitioned on YouTube. Her content is education, she touches on many different subjects, such as the philosophy of beauty, the notion of the ‘west’, as well as rebuttable to right-wing extremists in hopes of de-radicalizing right-wing extremists as well as incels. Here are three of her videos that are focused on different topics referring to the Trans experience. 

    https://youtu.be/9bbINLWtMKI

This first video is called “Pronouns” this video is a rebuttal to Ben Shapiros claims about Trans people. Ben Shapiro argues that “Facts don't care about your feelings” and Natalie responds by saying that she doesn't want her gender to be tolerated, she wants to convert people. She also says that Shapios deceptively frames the discussion around biology, when in actuality it is about language, or the proper use of words. Natile uses the example of Blaire White and Transwoman and conservative and her discussion with Shapior. Blaire uses the analogy of adoption, which works well and stumps Shapior. Natalie also talks about how performing gender is not the only thing that matters, that “Trans women are women because we live the lives of women.” 

https://youtu.be/EdvM_pRfuFM

In this video called “Transtrenders” Natalie presents a debate between to fiction characters to better show the ways people engage in the conversation about people who are Trans and people who are non-binary. Her character Tiffany Tumbles says that she is Transexual, that she has a mental illness, that her gender expression is not a trend, it is a diagnosis. That she (Tiffany Tumbles) does not like nonbinary people or people who express themselves in unorthodox ways because she feels like they invalidate her or as she put it “You don't have medical condition you have a fashio disaster.” The character Tiffany is debating (also played by Natalie) is called Baltimore, they are nonbinary and say they dress this way to express themselves, not to invalidate people like Tiffany. Baltimore also challenges Tiffany on her Transcendentalism, asking “Have you ever seen your brain? Did your doctor see your brain before you were prescribed hormones?” they also challenge Tiffany by saying that “So you got hormones because of your feelings, why then are your feelings about your gender valid but mine are not? You don't think you're real until a man in a coat sings a prescription pad”. The main argument of this video is that shaming nonbinary people is unhealful because even if they do decide they are in the binary the stigma can keep other nonbinagr and trans people in the closet. 

https://youtu.be/1pTPuoGjQsI

This last video is a response to TERFs or “Gender Critical”, which is also the title of the video. In this one Natalie answers ‘Troll Questions’, questions that trolls ask that require complex and nuanced answers. This video is broken up into 8 parts they are as follows; Gender metaphysics, in which Natalie says that Trans people often use metaphysical language to describe feelings that are hard to put into words. The second is Gender Stereotypes, to which she says that no- her clothing and makeup do not make her a woman, that no Trans woman thinks that femininity and womanhood are the same thing. Rather Trans women are using the cultural language of feminine signifiers to prompt others to see them as what they are, i.e. women. Next is Abolish Gender, she says that perhaps it would be good to abolish gender, but that that is a utopian project. That when you say that you are targeting people most vulnerable under the system then leveraging that same system against them under the pretense of abolishing it. The fourth is male Privilege, to that Natalies response is that now since she has transitioned, she does experience street harassment and other forms of toxic masculinity. And that when a Trans woman doesn't ‘pass’ the society around her does not then default into treating her as a man, instead they treat her even worse. The fifth is Male socialization, Natalie concedes that it's kind of true, most Trans women did not experience that trauma of girlhood. But she says that socialization does not end at childhood, and that this largely depends on when a person transitions. She also makes the poin that many Trans people were Queer or feminine growing up so they did not benefit from male privilege as much as a cic man. The sixth point is Reproductive oppression, to which she says that not all cis women feel that things like childbirth define them as women either. The seventh is Erasing Female Vocabulary, to which she says that there is no one saying that female specific words need not be used, and that words we have now such as “pregnant people” are not erasing women, just including Trans men and nonbinary people. The last is that TERF is a Slur, to which Natale says no it's not, it's derogatory. 

[antoine-roquentin]

Before, McIntosh’s system came close to making virtue and power mutually exclusive. The powerless tended to be virtuous, while the powerful were typically not.

In her new system, McIntosh and those who follow her end up with a strikingly textured identity. The juxtaposition just described means that they contain within themselves a contradictory innocent oppressor, but also the potential for a more heroic role:

[…] there are pressing questions for me and I imagine for some others like me. […] What will we do with [the knowledge of our privilege]? As we know from watching men, it is an open question whether we will choose to use unearned advantage to weaken hidden systems […]

Is acknowledging one’s privilege therefore the precondition for having power and virtue together?

Compare Andrea Smith’s account of her experiences in anti-racism workshops:

[…] despite the cultural capital that was, at least temporarily, bestowed on those who seemed to be the most oppressed, these rituals [wherein people acknowledged their privilege] ultimately reinstantiated the white majority subject as the subject capable of self-reflexivity and the colonized/racialized subject as the occasion for self-reflexivity.

Other people play less dynamic roles within the system. Men originally entered McIntosh’s system as targets, while black people entered it as raw material (for the gender/race analogy). Throughout the Invisible Knapsack, men do one thing – fail to acknowledge their privilege. Meanwhile, black people also do one thing – suffer from their lack of privilege.

According to Fraud, women and various minority communities do a disproportionate share of the activities that make life livable; they therefore constitute resources from which everyone could, if they choose to, draw insights about how to live life in a more sustainable way.

In Privilege, as the lateral ideal faded away, the spotlight shifted from what could be learned from the wisdom of minorities; the role of minorities was now what could be learned from their pain.

As mentioned above, it is plausible to suggest that McIntosh’s new image of oppressed black people was partially based on her earlier feminine self-image. In fact, an alternative analogy to Smith’s colonialization for the role of black and other oppressed people in privilege culture is chivalry – they are set upon a pedestal according to the type of ideal white femininity. Some features of chivalry that are relevant here is that women are presented as supremely sensitive to being wronged, and insults to their honor are the stereotypical justification for conflict and violence.

A model in which black and other oppressed people are treated with perpetual chivalry certainly leads to better behavior than some models, and being on the receiving end can at times feel like a shot of emotional oxygen. But whatever one thinks about desirable and undesirable gender roles, it seems like there are problems with a structure that promises its leaders that they can transcend gender, and meanwhile honors the oppressed with a normatively feminine role, complete with encouragements to value this role and protect it from those who might threaten it.

McIntosh was very conscious of unwritten “maps, passports, codebooks, visas” that could make people of one group “confident” and “comfortable” while making others “inconfident, uncomfortable, and alienated.” Privilege discourse makes some people feel comfortable and others less comfortable – but whom?

When cracking down on problematic statements, common expedients at least superficially eschew conflict, from the menacing “I find it telling” to acknowledging one’s privilege in a way meant for someone else.

When having to backtrack, the culture favors people who can apologize without ultimately losing too much face.

When advancing one’s own views, it can be helpful to talk openly about one’s emotions and vulnerabilities in a way that others will respect.

We have just seen that people in the role of the oppressed will often become the object of a sort of chivalry.

These cultural practices are all compatible with very mainstream ideas about femininity. We could say that setting them up as norms “benefits women.” Which women, though? Women who are ideally placed to leverage a culturally privileged ideal of femininity – in a word, white upper-middle class femininity.

For some people, stringing together “white upper-middle class femininity” is meant as an immediate takedown. That is not the sense in which I am using the phrase. White upper-middle class female culture is a culture like other cultures, running a very wide gamut all the way from the charmingly idealized portrayal of Gilmore Girls to dystopian nightmares like Heathers or Courtney Summers’ novel Some Girls Are.

The issue, however, is that it isn’t the only culture besides white upper-middle class male culture. Do all white women find its norms easy to observe? Do black women? How about black men?

According to white privilege facilitator Paul Gorski,

[…] “white privilege,” was popularized by the feverish, largely grassroots, pre-World-Wide-Web circulation of a now famous essay by my now-equally-famous friend and colleague, Peggy McIntosh. […] The white privilege concept wasn’t new, of course, nor was it uniquely Peggy’s, a fact that she has explained over and over with great humility through the years. Scores of People of Color […] had spoken about the concept of white privilege for generations before Peggy wrote […] Each, despite never using the term, wrote or spoke about white privilege before doing so was hip; when nobody grew wealthy writing and lecturing about white privilege […] Still – and this, in and of itself, is a marker of privilege – it took Peggy’s essay to plant the concept firmly into the mainstream “diversity” lexicon […]

Unease oozes from this paragraph – many white people are now writing and speaking about white privilege, it has become the “hip” thing to do, some of them are becoming “wealthy” doing so. The term itself was invented by the white McIntosh and her essay almost singlehandedly popularized the idea. Gorski attempts to quell the dissonance by claiming, with McIntosh, that the concept (if not the term) was invented by authentic People of Color, that McIntosh merely publicized it, and even there she didn’t do anything particularly special – consistent with the privilege narrative, her success should be attributed to privileges afforded by her whiteness.

Is any of this convincing, though? Let us quote James Baldwin (from The Fire Next Time), one of the writers whom Gorski claims spoke about white privilege before McIntosh:

There appears to be a vast amount of confusion on this point, but I do not know many Negroes who are eager to be “accepted” by white people, still less to be loved by them; they, the blacks, simply don’t wish to be beaten over the head by the whites every instant of our brief passage on this planet. White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved this – which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never – the Negro problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed.

There are no invisible hidden systems here, just not being beaten over the head. There is no wish for whites to acknowledge their privilege; Baldwin thinks that whites might be better off if they would just work at loving themselves. The only sense in which Baldwin and McIntosh are talking about the same universe is that they both refer to black people as being in some way disadvantaged.

And even without discussing the other supposed intellectual progenitors of McIntosh, we have hopefully made a plausible case that the specific concept of white privilege that has become “hip” is so thoroughly interwoven with specific aspects of McIntosh’s spirit and will, as to raise serious doubts about whether it could have been “discovered” by anyone else.

this is the third in a three part series and goes into a lot more detailed criticism than what’s here, but i particularly like the way it points out how much the privilege system draws from the experience of upper-middle class white women. this is exactly the sort of person over represented in mcintosh’ field, and exactly who she would have drawn much of her ideas from as well as who she would have needed to impress to move upwards. it also tends to be the primary demographic to carry on the use of the privilege metaphor, typically to benefit their own academic work. it’s similar to how so many aspects of feminism reflect upper-middle class desires, like the way radical feminism tries to liquidate trans women and sex workers through direct state violence against those women, because both are seen as lower class practices and as threats.

[peakblr]

rad asks: 3, 10, 16

ah hey!!!!!! thanks for asking 💕💐 sorry this took so long

3. Are there any parts of radical feminism, or beliefs commonly hold by radical feminists that you strongly disagree with?

im actually having a hard time answering this ahshskshdlska i wrote a really long rambly response but i ended up justifying what i was describing as disagreeing with LOL so like. idk no widely held radfem beliefs are coming to mind, sorry im just as disappointed as you are shdkshdlsjds i hope this doesnt sound sheepish or anything. So i’ll say what i do agree with, which won’t come as a surprise to anyone probably.

i’m anti porn, i think porn should be illegal, should not exist and all of it should be destroyed, pornstars should be given justice and compensated somehow for the govt allowing this shit, and all pornographers should be considered lower than dirt and killed publicly LOL. and i don’t feel bad about that, they don’t feel bad about filming rape and selling it, having the pornstars they abuse lie about how they love it when asked. i feel the same way abt prostitutes and their pimps, that paid consent is not consent and pimps can all drop dead.

i’m all for separatism, no it would not stop men from being men, but it would save women and girls a lot of grief, hurt and scarring.

i think gender isn’t real, is used to oppress women and helps no one, and that id rather it be abolished than exist to validate some people who like gender roles, ackshully.

ive been agnostic for a long time; my mom and my brother are atheists, my dad is a deist. but i will sooner believe that the creator of everything is female, having given birth to the universe than a male. A man’s involvement in creation is his ejaculation. No more, no less. life does not begin in the testicles, or you wouldnt see all this anti abortion stuff, you would see more anti male masturbation stuff–if it weren’t mostly about using women as incubators, lol. that being said i’m pro choice clearly.

i am anti surrogacy, for similar reasons. same sex couples should absolutely be allowed to adopt, but no one has the right to have a baby except the woman who can use her own uterus for her own baby. even with infertile women, there is no justification for paying another women to rent out her uterus.

i currently am not vegan but i admire the ideas behind it, and i see the similarities between how animals and women are treated. i do know however that those who are farming this produce are not necessarily treated well either. disclaimer i know literally jack shit about it so i can’t really speak much for it either way at this moment.

i know there are trans identified, detransitioned or reidentified females who don’t like words like “mutilation” to describe the surgeries they have had to remove their breasts or to alter their privates to mimic penises, and while i don’t insist on mutilation being the word used, i don’t see how it is inaccurate and i find it hard to talk about it in a positive light, less i be endorsing that women get these surgeries to ease their discomfort with their bodies. that being said i don’t want tifs or detransitioned/reidentified women to beat themselves up and constantly regret it. it is not their fault that they were made to be so disconnected from their bodies. they did not want that, and with the trans movement there were not a lot of people telling them that there are other ways besides transitioning to deal with these feelings. i don’t see how this can be hard to believe seeing as we call it the trans cult all the time, which is an accurate name by the way.

i like the alternative spellings of woman and women. womyn, wombyn, wimmin, womxn, a mon, wom or whatever it is. i don’t currently use them myself but i love them and i don’t care how “stupid” you think it is. you know whats stupid??? the words “trans woman,” “trans man,” and “nonbinary.” “Cis woman.” yeah ill take wombyn any day rather than agree that i “identify” as a woman for not subscribing to the transgender religion.

political lesbianism is shitty, i understand some straight women don’t wanna be celibate, but dating lesbians to stick it to the men and not because you love that lesbian is selfish i think. if youre bisexual then you are also not a lesbian but by all means be a febfem or just a bisexual who does not fuck with men.

prostitution will never be empowering. make up, nails, impractical clothes, revealing clothes is not empowering, having men think you are sexy or fuckable is not empowering. you are not “doing it for yourself.” “Poly” relationships are not empowering or woke, making yourself more accessable sexually to men is not empowering in the same way that it empowers men to have sex with multiple women.

idk ive been writing this for a million years but thats some things off the top of my head that i know i Do agree with, i know that wasnt the question but i still wanted to say something lol. i realize now this answered multiple questions from that ask post so im sorry if anyone else thought of asking those things that i answered LOL

10. What’s your relationship with the term “terf”?

ah! i do jokingly call myself that occasionally, you can see it right there on my about page. but in all seriousness it’s horseshit and goes to show how narcissistic the trans movement is. I see people, newly self described radfems who haven’t figured out what the point of it all is, who try to say “there’s a difference between terfs and radfems! You can be radfem and trans inclusive!” or whatever. To which I say, 

these are not two separate groups. Actual radfems are called trans exclusionary because they don’t think men who identify as women can be oppressed by women, and that having been born as a woman is not a privilege, regardless of how that woman identifies. 

radfems aren’t even trans exclusive, really. While there are many detransitioned, reidentified women, there are also many who have transitioned and intend to stay that way, or who are even transitioning currently for their own reasons and comfort, while still confronting their womanhood and how they have been affected or are effected by being a woman in our society as well as how transitioning is dangerous. it’s male exclusive more than anything, and rightfully so. any problems men have are created by other men, and as one user on here put it, feminism should not be “all lives matter.” 

i forgot to say this initially but being “trans inclusive” is interpreted by some to mean “trans endorsing,” that being trans is an innate thing just like homosexuality, that brain sex is real, and that there is nothing wrong with trans identified females getting surgeries they don’t need on perfectly healthy genitals, or getting hormones they otherwise wouldn’t naturally have that have life altering side effects. otherwise i would be called trans exclusive. LOL. so it really does not mean anything, ultimately.

16. How do you feel about the terms TIF/TIM?

i think they’re great. it says exactly what it means. it is much more appropriate than trans man or trans woman, and it makes it easier to talk about them with a little less word salad. the term trans man others tifs from females, and the term trans woman others tims from males. this is problematic. there is nothing differing tifs from females and tims from males outside of the fact that they are trans identified. the only differences they may have are if they have surgically and or hormonally transitioned, but it is not enough difference to make them the opposite sex, nor does it erase male or female socialization, and the benefits or consequences of being a man or a women, respectively. i worded this a lot better when i saved this draft last but tumblr seemingly ate it LOL so thats a drag. but yeah. tif/tim is great. i don’t think it should be offensive, there is nothing insulting or cruel about it. at best it is “invalidating.”

thank you for sending me these!!!! i’m sorry if my answers were unsatisfactory or hard to understand lmao i edited a lot of fluffy blabbering out of my responses believe it or not. i hope you’ve had a great day and that you’re having a lovely night 💌🌻😊

#ask