#its not surprising to see transphobic men say that men should be masculine and women are crybabies who can't hold their own | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thedeadflag · 3 years

Note

I’m so confused! I know it’s not your responsibility to educate me but in your post bringing awareness to the negative aspects of g!p fanfic you say

“Why do these g!p characters rarely if ever involve experiences reflective of trans/intersex women? Why are they so utterly cis and perisex-washed? Why do nearly all writers have zero idea that tucking is a thing? “

Doesn’t that answer your original question? The reason they don’t reflect those groups of ppl is bc g!p isn’t trying to represent those groups of people or else it WOULD be transphobic to limit them to one specific fetish right? it just refers to a canonically female character with the addition of a penis (I don’t argue the name “g!p” should be changed bc that’s a no brainer why that could be offensive). But the fanfic in general, how could it be harmful? I’ve noticed in my time reading it as a non binary person it’s given me great gender euphoria reading a reader insert where reader has a penis while being a femme representing person just bc that’s a reflection of my personal experience. I don’t see anywhere where g!p fanfic ever references or tries to emulate the experiences of trans or intersex people so how could it be offensive?

Sorry this is way too long I’m just very confused

I'm going to try and lay this out as politely as I can. It's after 3:30 in the morning here, so this could be a bit disjointed and rambling. More under the cut:

In real life, ~99.999999% of women with penises are trans women. Which puts us in a tricky situation of (A) being the only women with penises around for media involving women with penises to reflect back on, and (B) being in the lovely position of precious few people actually having had meaningful real life exposure to trans women, meaning (C.) all those stigmas and all that misinformation are going to purely affect us and it’s going to be uncritically gobbled up by the masses, since they don’t have any meaningful information to fill in the blanks with instead.

When we peer into the depths of femslash fandoms and see all these folks who aren't trans women writing about women with penises, and using cis women’s bodies as platforms for these penises, it’s the simplest thing.

I mean, some of those folks might actually be struggling and confused about why they’re into it, what the real appeal is, why they get off on it, why they might have some feelings about wanting a penis of their own…

…but from our vantage point, it’s really easy to gauge 99.99% of the time. We can generally see valid, legitimate yearning to have a penis pretty damn easily in a piece of art/writing, and we can also see when people who create this media are just hung up on a boatload of baggage and fetishization.

And 99.9% of the time, the creators are just hung up on a boatload of baggage and fetishization, and see trans women’s bodies as a perfect vehicle to tap into that, generally due to deeply held cissexist views that link us and our bodies and genitals directly to cis men, to maleness. As if penises are rooted in maleness and masculinity (which is absolutely not true).

And I have sympathy for NB folks (certainly TME ones who have reached out to me in the past about this) who might be struggling with that, but just because they’re non-binary, it doesn’t mean they get to appropriate our bodies and reproduce transmisogyny and trans fetishization in their attempts at feeling better. Shit doesn't work like that.

Because again, the only women with penises in this world, essentially, are trans women. Meaning any woman with a penis in media is a trans woman, implicitly or explicitly. Meaning that when people who aren’t us want to write us, intent doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter if it’s just the writer’s fantasy, it’s still going to attach a variety of messages directly onto us.

And more often than not, due to cissexism, those messages are linking us to maleness, to toxic masculinity, etc..

While I do want to believe they're a fairly small minority, a lot of NB folks in fandom spaces like g!p characters in part because they see penises as male and the rest of the body as female and think that duality is interesting and would be comfortable, and is a nice balance of “both worlds” or a nice position “between male and female”, but that’s a wholly cissexist, transmisogynistic view to have, and it’s one that absolutely cannot be supported without directing sexual violence against trans women and invalidating our entire existence. Certainly not all NB folks into g!p like it for that reason, but holy shit a fair bit of them do and it’s weird and wrong and fetishistic.

g!p emerged from the idea that women can't have penises, and drew on the transmisogyny and cissexism of tr*nny porn to structure that frame of desire and the core patterns and trends within these works. It's always been trans women's bodies being used as a vehicle, whether or not the writers of these fics are explicitly aware of it, because the trope itself still holds true to its original patterns and cissexism. It's not the name that's the problem, it's the content; changing the name would be a surface level change that wouldn't affect anything.

g!p objectifies women with penises (trans women). A woman with a penis is more than just a woman with a penis, but the use of the term and trope is literally to (A) remind people that women don't have penises, otherwise the g!p term wouldn't be needed if people actually accepted women with penises as women, and that (B) this is a story centered on a scenario where there's a woman with a penis, with key focus on that genitalia specifically. it's the drawing point, it's the lure, it's what everything is centered on. It is a means for folks to write lesbian sex while also writing about penis in vagina and getting off to it. It's also no surprise that the penises so clearly emulate cis men's penises in these works, that is by design.

As I’ve said many times before, if you’re only writing trans women’s bodies to showcase cis men’s penises, you’re not respecting the womanhood of trans women, and this ultimately has nothing inherent to do with penis-owning women, it has to do with (cis) men and their penises, because trans women are just being used as a vehicle to emulate them. When NB folks do the same thing, and imagining themselves as those g!p characters, they are ultimately embodying cis men, their maleness, and often toxic masculinity, in a way that feels safe and distanced enough for them, a shell that they often code as cisnormative due to their own unprocessed cissexism.

And trans women don’t deserve that.

You seem caught in the idea that if something doesn't directly perfectly reflect trans women, that it can't be linked to us., which ignores the long long history of media being used to misrepresent marginalized peoples and cast us in insulting, dehumanizing lights. You show a lack of understanding of the g!p trope and the long history of its usage across a few other names, even if the content and patterns remained the same. It shows a lack of understanding of tr*nny porn and transmisogynistic stigmas, which the trope draws heavily from.

I think we can all recognize that most 'lesbian' prn that's made does not represent actual lesbians, it's overwhelmingly catered to the male gaze. We can also recognize that this category of porn has led to a lot of harassment towards lesbians from cis men who at the very least want to believe lesbians are just like they are in the porn he watches, that lesbians just need the right man. Lesbians are being used as a vehicle for a fantasy that was created externally to them, and doesn't represent their realities.

It's the same kind of situation here. The way g!p fics play out overwhelmingly doesn't reflect trans women's realities, but they are inherently linked to us regardless, as we're the vehicles for those fantasies, as unrealistic and harmful as they may be.

g!p characters are built in our fetishized image that’s based on a deeply cissexist misunderstanding of us, of the gender binary, and of bodies in general.

I mean, when 99% of cis folks don’t understand how trans women tend to be sexually intimate… when they don’t understand what dysphoria is and how it works and how it can affect us physically and emotionally…when they don’t understand almost any of our lived experiences…then they’re not going to be able to accurately portray us even if they wanted to.

And I’ve read enough g!p fics where authors wrote those as a means of trying to add trans rep, but because they didn’t understand us at all, it wasn’t remotely representative, and it was ultimately fetishistic, even if there was an undercurrent of sympathy and a lack of following certain common g!p patterns there that differentiated it from the norm.

If g!p fics were at all about reducing dysphoria or finding euphoria, then it wouldn’t be explicitly tied up in the performance of very specific sex acts, very specific forms of misogyny and toxic masculinity, very specific forms of sexual violence and exertion of sexual power, etc.

But it is.

So the notion that creating g!p fics helps NB folks? Nope. It CAN certainly prevent/delay those folks from facing a whole boatload of shit they’ve internalized, and coddle them at the expense of trans women.

Because if it was really about bodies and dysphoria/euphoria, there would be a considerable push (allying with out own) to end our fetishization and to represent us in and out of sexual contexts with accuracy, respect, and care. Because they wouldn’t care what sex acts were performed and what smut beats were hit, they’d just want to see someone with a body like their ideal being loved, being sexual, connecting, being authentic, etc. Which very much is not the case in the overwhelming majority of g!p fics. That's what we want, and it's not what g!p writers want, it's nothing they give a shit about.

Like, a ways back I started doing random pulls of g!p fics from various fandoms and assessing them for certain elements to provide some quantitative clarity. I started on The 100 here, and did OuaT here. Never finished the 100 one since the results leveled out and stayed pretty consistent as the sample size grew, so I didn't really see the point in continuing any further after about 140 fics when the data wasn't really changing much at all.

Lastly, media influences people. I've read countless posts and comments from people who use fanfiction as a sex ed guide, in essence. Which is ridiculous, but I also know sex ed curricula often isn't very accurate or extensive in a lot of areas, so people take what they can get. Representation in media can be powerful, and when it overwhelmingly misrepresents people, that's also powerful. Just because fandom is a bit smaller than televised media, it doesn't make that impact any lesser, certainly not for those whose primary media intake is within fandom.

Virtually all trans representation in f/f fanfiction is misrepresentative of us. That has a cost in how people understand us, how people react to us, and how people treat us. Not just online, but in physical spaces, and in intimate settings.

I invite you to read that post you referenced again, or perhaps this longer one which is a response to a trans guy who seemed to feel something similar to you with this trope.

All I can do is lay it out there and try to explain this. It's up to you how you handle this. All I know is whenever there's a big surge in g!p in a fandom, trans women generally leave it en masse, because it's a very clear and consistent message that we're not valued, respected, and that people value getting off on us over finding community with us.

#g!p #creative responsibility #trans fetishization #trans representation #intersex fetishization #intersex representation #genitals tw #genital mention tw #intersexism #transmisogyny #fandom meta #long post #cissexism #t slur tw #media representation #media literacy

31 notes · View notes

mysticdragon3md3 · 3 years

Video

youtube

Ranma ½ is GENIUS. Here’s Why by Bonsai Pop

The thing I really appreciated about Ranma ½ when I was younger, was that it was a discussion about gender without getting sidetracked by sex, the way most “sex comedies” did, especially at the time. At the time, publishers tried to market Ranma ½ as a “sex comedy” in the vein of raunchy college-setting Hollywood movies or fanservicy Male Gaze series (compare “Futaba-kun Change” or the proceeding “harem genre” that Ranma ½ started). But Ranma ½ felt more like a discussion about gender more than sex, or even more than sexuality. And being an AroAce kid, who didn’t know what AroAce was at the time, but was very confused about my gender, I really appreciated Ranma ½’s focus on gender over sex, fanservice, and heterosexuals navigating (sexual) relationships—which, I *cannot* express enough, was the saturated majority of all anime/manga, that even came close to discussing gender, at the time. I just wanted a discussion about gender, gender roles, complaining about presumed traditional ideas about gender, and how to define one’s own gender despite society’s pressures about gender. I wanted a discussion about Strength, that the martial arts genre did so often, without an advocation for sexist ideals, toxic masculinity, stereotypes about “feminine” being weaker (even as warriors), fixated only on romance, or any number of female stereotypes, etc. I feel like I can’t remind people enough of how it was back then, when not only were these toxic mysoginist ideas portrayed frequently, but they were also portrayed as good, true, “right”, or unquestioned. At least when Ranma Saotome was being a sexist jerk, he was punished for that terrible thinking or eventually had to reconcile with his dissonance. And Akane Tendo was revolutionary at that time too. It used to be that on the Shonen genre side, we had only hyper fem, passive, romance-fixated, love interests, OR nagging, cold female characters that really felt like the author was conveying all their horrible views on women in general, OR sexy eye-candy that had close-ups on their boobs or butt so frequently, that it completely made their lack of focus on romance or anything else in their personalities, secondary. Then on the Shoujo genre side, we had girls who were fixated on nothing but romance, constantly jealous and possessive—and often over guys who hadn’t even proven themselves worthwhile to pursue romantically. Let’s face it: A lot of Shoujo leading men were often jerks, treated their female love interests badly, and for some reason, she was just supposed to play the devoted “Lady Murasaki” and be totally “in love” with him. Whyyyyyyyyyy????????????? Even worse on the Shonen genre side too, because he treats her badly, it doesn’t get portrayed as bad treatment, he doesn’t understand why she’s angry, so she just looks like a volatile nag all the time, often existing only to be objectified or serve as a flimsy motive for his character arcs and actions. It was a pretty bad time. Not that now has eliminated those problems, but when Ranma ½ and Akane Tendo seem like the shining lights of something different, maybe then you can understand how much I sorely needed Ranma ½ and Akane Tendo at that time.

Really surprised that this video essay didn’t mention Jackie Chan. The thing that differentiated Ranma ½ from so many martial arts battle anime/manga at the time, was that Ranma ½’s style of martial arts was inspired by Jackie Chan. Meanwhile, all the other Shonen martial arts manga/anime were so serious and based more on “cool”, “action” genre toned martial arts movies.

I’m intrigued by this video essay’s idea that Ranma ½ the series isn’t sexist, but rather, characters within the series are sexist, and are so in order to make a point about how them being like that is messed up. I need to grapple with this because one of my problems in looking back at Ranma ½ is that it can be a little transphobic and/or homophobic at times. Like, I’ll never forget when Tsubasa Kurenai was introduced and, Akane, this character that we’re supposed to completely sympathize with during this series, just keeps screaming in Tsubasa’s face that they are a “pervert”, simply because it’s revealed that Tsubasa identifies as a boy but dresses as a girl. I think the episode just ended like that, and that was supposed to be a joke, but I don’t know whether the reveal’s shock intended on the audience was supposed to be conveyed through Akane and we were expected to have the same reactions as her, or if we were supposed to be shocked at Akane’s reactions and her reactions being ridiculous were the joke. I dunno; it was a long time ago, I don’t remember much context, and I really should look it back up. But frankly, there’s a lot of Ranma ½ to sift through and that’s more time than I have, writing this post. Akane does seem to repeatedly have instances of being perfectly nice to characters, but when she discovers they’re actually guys, she spends a lot of time yelling “pervert” in their faces. Sometimes I don’t know if we’re meant to see how ridiculous Akane is being or if we’re meant to agree with her. Again, I watched/read the series a long time ago, and maybe if I re-watched/re-read it now, it would be clear to older me. Because, when it happens between Akane and Ranma, Ranma has a specific line, grummbling about how Akane was perfectly nice to him, up until she found out he was actually a boy. And Ranma was a bit nice in his characterization up until that early line of dialogue, so maybe we were supposed to be on his side in that thought. So maybe Akane spending the rest of the series yelling “pervert” at Ranma (repeated so often it’s essentially their running gag), is supposed to be a joke laughing at how irrational Akane is being. o.o? I’d hate to think we’re supposed to be on Akane’s side, repeatedly calling Ranma a “pervert” over a curse that he had no control over getting, and early on was portrayed as a misfortune that the audience was supposed to sympathize and pity him over. Maybe the whole thing is supposed to point out Akane’s flaws, since everyone in the series is pretty messed up. (Even Kasumi unsettled me a bit when I was younger, in that she dropped her entire life, to replace her mother’s role when she died. For me, being a young girl who didn’t buy into those traditional female roles, that were still at the time, strongly pushed onto girls in society, that was a little unsettling. Still love Kasumi as a person though.) Akane did have reason to “hate boys”, as the series specifically states early on, but I’d like to think that she was given this flaw as a point to grow away from. Just as this video essay calls to attention Ranma being sexist and, over the series, eventually growing out of it. But back when I was young and initially into Ranma ½, I feared that some of these sexist or even homophobic ideas in Ranma ½ were actually reflective of thoughts that Rumiko Takahashi advocated. After all, there’s a point in Maison Ikkoku where Kyoko berates herself by saying all women are fools. Maybe I was too young to see the nuance in a character berating her own mistakes in her love live, vs the implication that all women are “properly” stereotyped into being obsessed with love and end up acting foolish for it. Nowadays, I can see how we can berate ourselves whenever our specific actions can slot us into generalized stereotypes, and we curse ourselves for falling into proving stereotypes true on occaision. But back then, when I was younger and watching Ranma ½ for the first time and reading Maison Ikkoku for the first time, I was afraid that such lines were reflective of Takahashi believing such stereotypes as truth. Which is why I was so happy when sometime after Ranma ½, Inuyasha had a canonically gay character, and instead of Inuyasha calling him a pervert the entire time, he just got exasperated with his non-stop flirting, the way that all the female characters from Ranma ½ are tired of guys who won’t take “no” for an answer. At the time, I thought, “Yay! Takahashi has evolved to a less homophobic stance!” But maybe, all this time, she was always against such things, and merely portraying them, even through characters we were supposed to sympathize with, merely to show how messed up such ideas are. I really like that thought which this video essay presented.

But I will disagree with this video essay on 1 thing: The manga is better. I’m not trying to be elitist. I realize that comedy has a very subjective sensibilities, and the anime leans into awkward silence type comedy, whereas I am sick of that type of comedy. But so many visual gags and jokes in the manga, and Rumiko Takahashi’s style in general, involve panels that are almost completely re-drawn, with only 1 element changed—the gag element—suggesting that the eye is supposed to read from panel to panel quickly (since the human eyes/brain filters out a lack of change, and is hard-wired to focus on changes from previous conditions). To me, this suggests quick punchlines, whose sudden oddity is supposed to shock, implying an intended fast pacing to the jokes. And yeah, Takahashi will draw seemingly normal scenes, detailed with all the normalcies of a commonly recognizable environment, then suddenly the next panel is exactly the same except a character is contorted into a silly pose or an absolutely ridiculous creature with an intentionally nonsensical facial expression has suddenly appeared, amid that completely “normal” scene, with all its “normal” details _redrawn_. It’s why the “evil oni” episode in Ranma ½ had a ridiculous face, despite its supposedly ominous background. In fact, anywhere Takahashi can fit a gag face, especially if it contradicts the surrounding scene’s/story’s serious tone, she will do it. She has even said in interviews that if scenes are too serious, she will try to put in a gag in the corner. I remember reading Maison Ikkoku during a depressive episode (for both me and Godai) and suddenly Yotsuya had poked his head through a hole in the wall, into the scene, shining a flashlight onto his own face, like a kid telling a ghost story, all while he made funny faces and Takahashi’s typical gag with the sign language “I love you” gesture. The woman cannot let things stay serious (except for Mermaid Saga, parts of Inuyasha, and some short stories), and I love her for it! ^o^ But the way she suddenly injects ridiculousness into scenes and character designs, suggest, at least to me, an intended fast paced delivery with the jokes. That sudden shock when you notice Yotsuya making faces in the corner of a depressing scene. That sudden shock, when Ranma is hiding from his mother, and is clinging to the ceiling or futons like Spiderman, and Akane is just supposed to act natural so Ranma’s mom won’t notice where he’s hiding. To me, this suggests the punchline is supposed to come at you like a sudden punch, unlike awkwardness that hangs in the air. So when the anime tries to make the joke linger, I just don’t enjoy it as much as when my brain can dictate the faster pacing I want (and believe better fits) while reading the Ranma ½ manga.

Also, the manga is better because those manga filler episodes were not as well written as the manga. Rumiko Takahashi is a master of short stories. And that shows when you run into the less-effective filler anime episodes–even when you don’t know they’re filler episodes! I remember watching the Ranma ½ anime before reading the manga, before there was even internet lists of which were the filler episodes, and coincidentally, all the filler episodes did not make me laugh out loud, whereas every episode up until that point, had made me uncontrollably laugh. I feel like the anime thought that because Ranma ½ was an episodic, very silly series, they could just insert anything and it would fit. But clearly, only the manga-based episodes—and even individual scenes!—had the nuance of Takahashi’s writing and pacing, to make even an episodic, ridiculous series work.

Also, I love how this video essay just lavishes the love on Rumiko Takahashi. ^o^

Another thing this video essay pointed out that I appreciate about Ranma ½ is how indifferent Ranma is to all the advances of his suitors or even accidental fanservice. All the consequential “harem genre” series that tried to emulate Ranma ½ always seemed to include male protagonists who were surrogates for the audiences’ intended horny reactions. But Ranma was neither turned on, enticed, nor tantalized by even accidental fanservice falling into his lap. (As Mother’s Basement has noted, harem genre protagonist have a penchant for accidentally falling and grabbing a girls’ boobs, or their face falling into her boobs, or accidentally put into a position to forcibly see up her skirt, etc.) If anything, he’s more embarassed that he accidentally walked in on girls in undress, rather than enjoying the view OR reacting so long, that the scene drags on, fixating on the accidental nudity/groping/fanserivce. And I was about to postulate that maybe because most harem genre and fanservice series are usually made by straight men for an audience with a Male Gaze. But Takahashi wrote Maison Ikkoku’s Godai, right before she created Ranma ½, and he very much enjoyed the view, took peeks, and fixated on any accidental fanservice. So it’s actually Ranma himself who had reactions and a perspective that were very agreeable to this asexual.

I hadn’t noticed before this video essay said it, but Happosai really is condemned much more for being the “pervy old man” archetype, whereas other series are very permissive towards that same archetype, even when they’re being sexual predators. I’d like to attribute this to Takahashi bringing a woman’s perspective, but Sailormoon was also written by a woman and (if I remember correctly) Rei’s grandpa’s pervy ways were reprimanded in only 1 episode then permitted as a running gag in the rest of the series (thankfully, not often). Then again, lots of the Shoujo genre also advocated for many toxic traditional ideas about gender (like girls picking romantic partners who don’t respect them, and girls being fully devoted/invested in such guys, because they “once” meet the bare minimum for human decency by being nice to them once). So maybe it was uniquely Takahashi’s prerogative to not let the “pervy old man” archetype slide as supposedly “endearing” silliness.

#ranma 1/2 #ranma1half #rumiko takahashi #video essay #analysis #gender #manga #anime #nostalgia #old otaku #martial arts genre #shonen genre #reactions #reminicing

17 notes · View notes

nomattertheoceans · 4 years

Note

I feel like I picked up on most of the racist tropes in Maas’ books but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the homophobia in them

Hi Non!! Thanks for the ask :)

Just an fyi if people didn’t see it, Anon is referring to my tags on this post about death of the author and the importance of criticizing media without taking into account the creator’s intent.

So yeah, regarding Maas. There’s a lot of ways in which I find her writing homophobic, I’ll divide them in different categories to try and make it clearer because my mind works in twisted ways x)

You should also know that I haven’t read Crescent City past the first few chapters so I can’t talk about this book (what I heard isn’t great regarding this issue but I haven’t read it so I won’t comment on it)

(this got long so I’m gonna use a read more)

worldbuilding

I think her worldbuilding tends to reflect a homophobia that she might not be aware of. Her entire world is built on heteronormative ... norms (lmao sorry I don’t have a better word I haven’t slept in more than 20 hours) that don’t leave any space for queer people to thrive in.

Throne of Glass actually got the less awful bit on this one, we’re shown that Hasar’s girlfriend Renia would become Empress if Hasar was crowned, and Aelin’s uncle was openly gay, so I guess compared to ACOTAR it’s better.

ACOTAR gets the worst of this: The fae society is painfully mysoginistic and by extend, homophobic. Mor is basically sold into marriage at sixteen, to a man, without regards of how she feels about it, because women are considered a breeding stock. The Illyrian women are viewed in the same light. Even Feyre is expected to be making heirs when she’s about to marry Tamlin. Yes, all these examples are painted as bad things in the books, but it doesn’t take away the fact that there are also considered normal within the society we are presented with. When the entire world is built around cishet dynamics (whether good or bad), it shows us that queer relationships are not the norm here, they’re outsiders from their own society (btw considering women as ‘baby makers’ is also transphobic but I’m not gonna open that can of worms).

The mating bond in itself is the biggest heteronormative concept in her books. As Rhys explains it in ACOMAF, it is literally intended for couples to make the strongest babies. It doesn’t care about love between partners, its primary goal is to perpetuate the species. It’s a natural instinct that we’re shown is basically impossible (or at least very difficult) to fight against. We’re shown that the woman has to make the man a meal to “seal the deal”, we’re shown that men become extremely violent towards other men they consider a threat when they’re influenced by the bond (by the way that’s toxic masculinity but it’s not what this post is about).

I believe that Maas didn’t intend for the mating bond to be a possibility between mlm or wlw couples, but that she retconned it in ACOWAR. Which in a sense is good, I’m all for queer soulmates! But the concept she invented here doesn’t have much room for non heteronormative relationships, and it becomes painfully obvious when you try to apply the mating bond logic to wlw/mlm couples. It brings many questions to mind: if it’s intended to make babies, does it mean that the mated mlm couple has one of the men be a trans man? If that’s the case, why didn’t she tell us? Why didn’t she spend more time on telling us their story? If they’re both cis men, then why would they have a mating bond, something specifically designed to help with species continuity by making babies? To me, it’s proof that she didn’t think it through, she thought it was cute to have two men be mates just like our main couple was, and didn’t stop to consider how the mating bond didn’t allow for this to happen organically because it exists in a vaccum of cishet privilege where she didn’t think about the consequences of including it in her books without elaborating on it.

We can also see that queer people aren’t expected to be the norm in that society. Feyre is genuinely surprised when Mor tells her that she likes women, as if it was this groundbreaking thing she never even considered. I’m not going to get into details as to why I hate Mor’s coming out (I love Mor being a wlw but really, really, hate that scene), but the fact that she hasn’t felt comfortable enough to come out in five centuries is very telling of how unaccepting the fae society is of queer people. So yeah, there’s a queer bar where she hangs out but like... that doesn’t mean it’s accepted. One of the main reasons why queer bars started existing in the first place was to become a safe space for people to be themselves, so you know, I kinda take it as another proof of how unopen-minded the fae society actually is.

lack of queer characters

Overall, we don’t have a lot of confirmed queer characters. Off the top of my head, I can think about (of course I might forget some so that might not be 100% accurate, I haven’t read the books in a long while):

TOG: Hasar and Renia, Aedion, Orlon and Darrow

ACOTAR: Mor, Helion, Thesan, Andromache, Nephelle

Note that I’m not counting unnamed characters. I don’t consider “x’s lover” as a developped enough character to count as representation, come on.

Out of all these characters, only two of them are in the main cast of their respective series (Aedion and Mor). The others go from “mentioned” to “secondary character” at best. I’m not saying that all of her characters have to be queer, but out of such a big cast of mains, one in each series seems very little.

construction of these characters

On top of not having many characters that aren’t cishet, the characters we do have aren’t very well handled by the story.

Hasar is repeatedly described as being ugly, despite most of the other characters being described over and over as breathtakingly beautiful.

Aedion compares bisexuality to forced prostitution.

Helion is basically shown as sleeping around with everybody.

Mor’s sexuality is kept so ambiguous that there’s debate as to whether she’s actually bi, or rather a closeted lesbian.

Renia barely talks, Darrow is a jerk. Orlon, Andromache and Nephelle are figures of the past that we never meet

This is a problem mainly because of how small in numbers the queer characters are. The more diverse cast you create, the easiest it gets to avoid hurtful tropes. I wouldn’t mind Helion being a bi man sleeping around all the time if he wasn’t the only bi man in ACOTAR. Nor would I mind Mor’s tragic backstory if we had other wlw characters. By reducing her cast to such little numbers, she’s creating problems in her writing. She’s telling us that bi men sleep around and never settle down, she’s telling us that sapphic women will only get tragic stories and never find love again.

In the end, the combination of a heteronormative worldbuilding and the lack of work put into the queer characters we are given makes it impossible for me to not consider her books homophobic.

To be clear,

I don’t think Maas does this out of malice. I don’t think she’s a homophobe who hates queer people or anything. I also don’t dislike her books. They’re a fun read, and there’s a reason why ACOMAF is one of only two audiobooks I always have on my phone! Hell, I even write fanfic with her characters. But I think it’s important to be critical of her books, particularly in regards to issues such as racism, mysoginy, or homophobia.

To go back to the original post from yesterday, this is why ‘death of the author’ is an important point here. I’m not saying that Maas intended to be homophobic or that she built her world expressedly to exclude queer people. But in the end, that’s what happened, and we can’t brush off the critics of queer people and people of color just by saying “well, the author didn’t mean it that way.”

I do think that she includes queer representation only as an afterthought in her books, and it shows. Mor’s coming out was poorly handled because she didn’t consider the ramifications of it, just like the mating bond suddenly applying to queer relationships. Her societies are based on cishet white upper class America and that leaves little to no place for queer people (and people of color) to thrive in her stories. From what I see, she doesn’t seem interested in consulting with sensitivity readers over these issues, and as long as she doesn’t swallow her pride and listen to the people that are affected by it, she’s not going to get better on these points.

#Anonymous #Asks #anti sjm #I guess?#I don't consider this to be anti it's just a discussion #but I get people not wanting to see negativity so I'll tag it #I'm not dwelling on the racism because that's not what anon asked #and also as a white woman I don't feel like it's my place to dwell on this #there are other bloggers that addressed it much better than I ever could #I hope this post is clear omg I rambled on for so long lmaoooo #I'm always opened to discussion by the way!! as long as you stay civil I'm willing to listen to any point of view #pinned post #sjm critical

116 notes · View notes

arthur-his-hat · 5 years

Note

Hi there, its me again, it's pride month so I thought it cool be good to do an hc of Javier, Sean, Arthur and John with a trans woman or trans man ! Sending love to the whole LGBT+ community 🌈

just to make this ask gayer than it is i’m doing trans man S/O so everyone can be gay af too lol happy pride y’all stay safe and have a great one !!!! ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜 this goes out to all my trans bby boys out there. i love all y’all ! remember to take ur binder off and take a few deep breaths today. ALSO ALL MY TRANS FEMALES FUCK YOU LOOK BEATIFUL TODAY FUCK IT UP BBY KEEP GOIN !!! STEP BACK AND BREATHE CUTIE UR ADORABLE

javier

he’s not surprised when you come out to him bc he had a feeling

he’s not upset at all :-) he’s like “oh you’re trans? guess i like men now babe you’re handsome as f u c k”

tbh he’s bi so he’s really not bothered by it and as far as the relationship goes he could never love you less for something you can’t control ya know

and it isn’t gross to him either ? like some people think it’s gross to be trans c they’re transphobic and shit and he’s just not like that

he loves you for you. you just happened to be born in the wrong body and he wishes he could change that for you

if you’re disphoric about your chest at all he’s gonna find a corset for your chest bc he loves you and he wants you to be comfortable in your own body

also let’s you wear his clothes !!!!! for a more masculine looks

calls you his dulce niño (sweet little boy) (or just sweet boy bc google translate is a bitch and i can’t speak spanish lmao)

all in all you’re the same person you were before you came out and he sees no need to stop loving someone he had a true connection with over something as small as gender

sean

(it’s funny that sean’s thing says god is gracious but iTS LITERALLY THE ONLY GIF I COULD FIND)

he’s a little confused by the concept of being trans ngl but that’s not because he’s transphobic he just doesn’t understand it

then you explain and he’s like “oh! gotcha so you wish you were born a man” and you’re like uhuh

he understands completely ? it’s actually weird how understanding he is you start to wonder if maybe he’s fought some thoughts of being a woman on the inside

when you ask him he’s like “nah just get feelings is all” which is true. he’s a very empathetic person so he understands feeling pain over how you were born

he still loves you sm like fuck you’re still the light of his life and that could never change

he gets you a corset binder too and helps you put it on every morning bc he’s a soft boy and he loves you

tbh sean is kinda small so he’ll let you wear his clothes if ur his size but if u aren’t he just steals some for u lol

his bby should be able to wear men’s clothes if his bby wants to fuck people who disagree

calls you baby boy lol ngl he loves it it feels right to him ?

i’m not sure what seams sexuality is but i feel like he’s pan/omni

but yesn loves you for your cute ass personality not what’s in your pants

arthur

(sorry had to include this gif bc it’s so fucking cute just like all my trans boys and trans girls out there)

he felt like something was off ??? about you a little bit and he doesn’t mean that in a bad way he just felt like you were hiding something from him

when you come out he’s like “oh cool i like dudes and i love you so this is good” he thought you were dying when you sat him down to talk to him lol

he’s ???? the chillest with it ? bc he’s bi too but he’s known he was bi for a v e r y long time ya know

like ? he loves men and he loves women too so for him this isn’t a difficult transition in the relationship like ur the same person but now he sees you as a boy ya know

he helps you find clothes just like all the other boys do

and he helps you find a union suit that fits you nice :-)

thinks you’re the cutest boy on the block bc u are

even before you came out he used gender neutral pet names ? so he still calls you sweetheart and darlin n such but now he throws in the occasion good boy or handsome

dude i think he’s happier since you came out bc he truly feels like you can both be your true selves now and it’s beautiful

is not ducking afraid to hold your hand in public even though it’s apparent that you’re a boy

people give you shit but uh arthr has a big iron on his hip so he shoots a bitch lol

loves u absolutely unconditionally no matter what

john

okay i’m not gonna lie to you john is going to be a little confused and ??? odd about it

he’s very uncomfortable with his sexuality bc it’s like he knows he likes guys but he refuses to admit it to himself

so he’s not uncomfortable with you being trans at all make no mistake of that he isn’t transphobic

for some reason he’s had it screwed up in his brain that he has to be the embodiment of masculinity and that means only likin girls

but bby likes boys

so you sit him down and tell him there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking a guy at all

and he cries i’m gonna tell ya he does he cries

but ! you convince him to be able to love you for being a boy and loving you for being you

so he’s v v thankful

he loves you so much seriously i think john has a male preference ?

which is why he was so torn when you intially told him bc he thought he was gonna have to break up with you to seem manly bc image back in 1899 ?? was everything really like if you were seen as different people disliked you

but tbh john grows a lot when you tell him

you stay together ! and love each other ! bc both of u deserve to be loved dangit >:-( now kiss

ngl this ask hit close to home bc my boyfriend is trans and it wasn’t really a struggle for me to accept him lol but i had him in mind when i wrote this (he loves john sm lol) love y’all bbys ! again stay safe this pride month and have a fuckin amazin time ! 💙💗☁️💙💓

#javier escuella #javier escuella/reader #javier escuella x reader #arthur morgan #arthur morgan/reader #arthur morgan x reader #sean macguire #sean mcguire/reader #sean macguire x reader #john marston #john marston/reader #john marston x reader

73 notes · View notes

discyours · 5 years

Note

What are your thoughts on contrapoints' new video if you've watched it ?

I had actually watched it before I got this ask but I wanted to rewatch it to make sure I had a good answer. Terrible idea, I spent way too much time on this, too much to justify shortening this out so I’ll put a cut out of courtesy to my followers.

I did actually find myself agreeing with her on a few points, though I didn’t spend much time being excited about that since criticising “TERFs” is hardly a new or rare thing. Starting out the video with a dramatic reading of a Germaine Greer quote was funny in my opinion, but it did set people up for an obvious bias. Some radfems truly are that transphobic and that’s really important to acknowledge, but it’s hardly news to anyone in her audience. I would’ve preferred if she’d engaged with more moderate forms of gender critical feminism, though I can’t say it’s all that much of a surprise that she didn’t do so since the entire basis of her channel is essentially putting on a wig to create a strawman (that’s not to say that the points she argued against were never made by anyone, but she does get to pick and choose which ones she talks about rather than debating a real person).

It’s also quite telling that she only asked past gender critical feminists for their input, not anyone who currently holds those beliefs (though again, can’t say I’m surprised). I did actually like her explanation of gendercrit ideology (”The idea is that gender [femininity, masculinity, gender roles, all that] it’s all a patriarchal construct, and biological sex is the only thing that makes a person a man or a woman.”). It’s fairly rare to see people represent it even somewhat accurately, so props for that. She then went on to mock questions about trans ideology as being comparable to “the Jewish question”, so,,, that strong start didn’t last long.

She explained that trans people are on the defensive against genuine questions because of the amount of transphobia we have to deal with from the government, the press, and oftentimes our family. It’s the reason we stick together and stick to unambiguous slogans that don’t concede anything (”trans women are women”). Which, cue 10 people unfollowing me, I don’t disagree with. I started this blog to talk about trans issues and at this point I’m about as trans-critical as troons can get, but even I don’t have the energy or desire to engage every single person I come across in their genuine concerns about trans people. The part Natalie leaves out however is that these slogans and chants are often part of an attempt to change legislation, where you don’t get to just state that trans women are women and refuse to discuss it when people don’t blindly accept it. Being on the defensive makes sense, but it’s incompatible with being on the offensive to change laws and social norms.

Moving on to CONCERN ONE: GENDER METAPHYSICS

This is one part where I actually strongly agreed with Natalie (well, as much as could be expected). She explains that sometimes, people use metaphors to explain feelings that are difficult to put into words, and that that’s how she understands the “trapped in the wrong body” language. Thanks to some groups who do mean this literally (thanks transmeds!) I don’t blame radfems for taking those statements seriously and attempting to debunk them, but I’m also really not fond of radfems jumping on just about any attempt to talk about dysphoria. A lot of the time these objections go beyond wanting to debunk something that is assumed to be meant literally, and beyond wanting people to think critically about their dysphoria; it reaches the point of expecting that they’ll simply reason people out of their dysphoria, since being dysphoric (and being trans) just doesn’t make any sense.

She also criticises brain sex theory much in the way that I do, and says she thinks of herself as a woman who used to be a man rather than having always been a woman. I’m too gendercrit to relate or agree completely, but compared to most trans people’s stance on this it’s pretty damn agreeable.

She finishes off this… chapter? With a quote about “living as a woman”, and while I have plenty of thoughts on that it’s elaborated on later on, so let’s move on.

CONCERN TWO: GENDER STEREOTYPES

Natalie explains that her clothes, makeup or voice don’t “make her a woman”, and that no trans woman thinks femininity and womanhood are the same. Rather, they’re using femininity as a cultural language to prompt people to see them “for what they are” (women).

Obviously the question of what makes someone a woman has yet to be answered here (unless the quote from the last chapter was intended to but that’s pretty circular [go watch the video this is too goddamn long to copy everything]) so I’ll leave the “see us for what we are” be for now. But it’s absolute bullshit that no trans woman equates femininity to womanhood. How many trans women have explained that they knew from a young age because they liked to play with dolls and their mother’s makeup? There have literally been trans women claiming that butch lesbians are closeted trans men, and that an aversion to femininity counts as gender dysphoria. I do agree with her last point, though. I didn’t cut my hair when I came out because I thought that would “make me a man”, I did so because it’d help me pass. A lot of radfems are intentionally obtuse about the existence of cultural signifiers just to paint trans people as delusional gender-worshippers.

I am actually gonna quote her here because I think it’s important;

“I think butch or gender nonconforming cis women sometimes side-eye hyperfeminine trans women because they don’t identify with this version of womanhood at all, and they’ve had to struggle since childhood against a society that’s told them they have to be feminine. And I completely sympathize with that. I think there should be more gender freedom, less coercion less restriction. But also, I’ve had to fight against the same society that told me I should really, really, really, not be *this*. So, I feel like we should be able to form some kind of solidarity here.”

I was ready to be mad at the start of the sentence but I actually agree. I just think that solidarity is lost when trans women refuse to acknowledge that society’s insistence that they don’t be like *that* is about gender roles and hatred of gender nonconformity. There is great potential for solidarity between GNC females and feminine trans women, but trans women reject it because they don’t want to be seen as GNC males or acknowledge that other people do. They want to be treated as normal, feminine women, and not doing so counts as misgendering.

CONCERN THREE: ABOLISH GENDER

Natalie argues that, while potentially a good idea, abolishing gender is a Utopian project (/pipe dream), much like abolishing borders. That denying trans people their gender identity because “abolish gender” is much like denying immigrants citizenship because “abolish borders”. It’s targeting the people who are most vulnerable under the present system, and then leveraging that system against them under the pretense of abolishing it.

I’ll concede that abolishing gender (and frankly, radical feminism as a whole) is fairly idealistic. Most radfem goals are incredibly long term and while that’s a good thing in some ways (I’m quite happy to be with a movement that refuses to accept anything less than complete female liberation, rather than some form of feminism that insists it’s only needed outside the west [”We’re already equal! I can vote! Look at the pants I’m wearing”]), it also leads to quite a lot of abstract academic bullshittery, and unreasonable expectations of ideological purity.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to view individual trans people as personally responsible for accomplishing the very long-term goal of abolishing gender. But radical feminism is not about individualism (which a lot of radfems do seem to forget, to be fair). There are radfems who are supportive of trans people; Andrea Dworkin herself supported transition. Only as a bandaid for a much bigger issue (the existence of gender) but she at least felt that trans people should be allowed this bandaid, should be allowed to reduce their suffering in current society in whichever ways they can. Dworkin’s view on this is far from rare and some radfems are even trans themselves. But to get back to the part about radical feminism not being individualistic; while individual trans people are not necessarily an issue for gender abolition, the wider trans community and its current political ventures most definitely is. The entirety of radical feminism is not going to collapse from a singular tran getting a gendered hairstyle, but replacing laws to refer to gender identity rather than sex can absolutely be devastating in the long term (and in the short term, when you look at the amount of protections that female-bodied people lose as a result), and that’s exactly what the trans community is currently pushing for.

Natalie also criticises the fact that gender critical feminists don’t seem to go after, say, Kim Kardashian for promoting gender roles. That they attack trans women with barely any following rather than people with actual power and influence. And I disagree with that, radfems are definitely highly critical of women like Kim Kardashian. But the way Natalie makes this point exposes part of the issue; nobody is going after Kim Kardashian for wearing a dress because Kim Kardashian never made an active choice to start wearing dresses. She experienced female socialisation no differently than any other woman (or, arguably, far more strongly considering who her parents were), so there’s some sympathy to be extended there. She has more responsibility due to her platform, but it’s no easier for her to break out of gender roles whereas trans people, to some extent, knowingly stepped into another gender role.

CONCERN FOUR: MALE PRIVILEGE

Natalie argues that men don’t treat trans women like their equals. That non-passing trans women are not treated like men, but like monsters, and that “male privilege” is not a good description of that experience.

This is one of those things that’s really hard to argue against because there’s an inherent disagreement about gender. Natalie’s insistence that non passing trans women aren’t treated like men comes from preexisting notions that a man is more than simply an adult human male, which is where I disagree. Non passing trans women are treated like men, but that does not mean that men will treat you like an equal; much like straight men can still treat gay men like shit, white men can still treat black men like shit, etc. “Male privilege” has never been a good descriptor of gay men’s experiences with homophobia either, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. There is more than one axis of oppression.

Moving on, Natalie brings up radfems’ skepticism about the whole notion of “passing”. I’m not going to bother to quote it because the entire part is good, but I do have strong feelings about this.

Her argument about gas station attendants and plumbers is completely on point, and I fucking hate it when people try to argue that anyone who reads trans people as their desired sex is simply being polite. It’s genuinely fucking impossible that everyone we run into has been indoctrinated into politically correct gender ideology, and the nerve a lot of radfems have to insist that our genuine life experiences are worthless next to their opinion is downright insulting.

Passing is, in fact, subjective. With my shift in perspective since becoming gender critical, my perception of trans people has changed too. People I used to believe passed flawlessly are now quite noticeably trans to me, but that’s not to say that that’s a result of “breaking free from trans ideology”. Relying on gender roles to identify people’s sex is in fact the cultural norm, and only actively attempting to view things differently (or spending large amounts of time around GNC people) changes that.

CONCERN FIVE: MALE SOCIALISATION

Natalie starts off by acknowledging that she has no idea what it’s like to be catcalled as a nine year old girl, or what that does to a child’s psyche. It did not start happening to her until she was an adult, when she knew what she was getting into and was ready for it. I just want to mention that separately because I just about cried when she said this. Sexual harassment at a young age is one thing I see trans women consistently failing to acknowledge, and an end has just come to the years of frustration I have suffered as the result of this argument going completely unaddressed.

She goes on to argue that socialisation does not stop at childhood; that it is a lifelong process. One example she gave is that her appearance is commented on far more now that she’s transitioned, and that that’s been something she’s had to get used to. I actually think that’s a good point and one that should be considered more, but I’m uncomfortable with the implication she brings when talking about resocialisation, as if childhood socialisation can be erased/redone entirely (which I don’t believe it can).

Then there’s the “trans women don’t experience socialisation the way cis men do” argument. Let me quote this and see if you can spot anything wrong;

“But also, trans women often don’t experience the socialisation the way cis men do. Many trans women are feminine and queer before they transition, and have always experienced a kind of femmephobia that is rooted in misogyny.”

The implication that feminine/queer equates to trans is really harmful, and once again she’s arguing from a different concept of what a man actually is. Not to mention that “femmephobia” is only a thing against men, as women are expected to be feminine.

“Some trans women also identified as women years before transitioning, and internalised society’s messaging about women more than society’s messaging about men. Now that’s still not the same as living in society as a girl from birth, but it’s also pretty different from the socialisation of most cis men.”

Interestingly enough, I initially wrote down “masculine cis men” rather than “most cis men” because that’s what the captions said. I wonder if Natalie realised her unfortunate implication that feminine = trans after uploading her video and decided to change it in the captions, since the words don’t sound all that alike.

She then talks about “stolen valor”, that she suspects that male privilege and male socialisation are such major talking points for gender critical feminists because they feel like it’s an injustice for people to claim their identity without experiencing their oppression. She compares radfems to transmeds; both groups supposedly believe that you need to suffer for your identity to be valid.

Fundamental disagreement about gender is affecting her understanding yet again. Identity-based thinking just can’t be applied to gendercrit ideology at all; the whole point is that gender identity itself is harmful, and that women who consider themselves as such because they are adult human females have extremely different experiences than people who feel that they identify with womanhood regardless of their lack of life experiences actually being female.

[”You didn’t suffer like I’ve suffered! You don’t know what it’s like”] “I’m tempted to strike back by saying that you don’t know what it’s like to occupy an identity so stigmatised that most of the people who are attracted to you in private are too ashamed to admit it in public”

Ever heard of butch lesbians, Natalie?

“You don’t know what it’s like to have a body so non-normative that you’re shut out of whole areas of society”

Cough

CONCERN SIX: REPRODUCTIVE OPPRESSION

I’m getting fucking tired at this point and I hate myself for even writing this long of a reply up until now. Basically, she pulls the good ol’ “not all women experience their womanhood the same way” argument, and then makes a fucking coat hanger abortion joke. I wish I had an in-depth reply to that but I don’t. I honestly don’t have the words to express how angry it makes me that someone who has never even had to deal with even the mere possibility of unwanted pregnancy thinks they have any place to joke about the horrific lengths women were forced to go to as a result of their reproductive oppression.

CONCERN SEVEN: ERASING FEMALE VOCABULARY

Through her assumption that feminism is a mere shield for gender critical radfems to hide their transphobia behind, Natalie is disregarding the actual feminist motivations behind opposing gender-neutral language. I mean, she literally does not even touch on it, she only says that nobody has any issue with individual women referring to themselves as women rather than “menstruators” (or, by her suggestion, “people who menstruate”).

Medical lingo is complicated, and I understand wanting to ensure that trans people do not lose insurance coverage when they change their legal sex. I don’t believe that changing all medical language to be gender neutral is the only possible solution there, but at the end of the day doctors are gonna know the difference between male and female anatomy even if their textbooks talk about “pregnant people”. Medical language is not the issue here, it’s the expectation that this language becomes commonplace everywhere, including in feminist discourse. That’s the point where female vocabulary is erased, and where it becomes impossible for women to discuss the reasons for their oppression. Menstruation and pregnancy are not “gender neutral” issues when it comes to institutional oppression, and we should not treat them as such.

Moving on, let me quote her directly:

“I have no problem with cis feminists discussing or celebrating periods or wearing pussy hats at political marches. […] I totally get why cis feminists would want to celebrate their reproductive anatomy in defiance of a society that routinely shames and subjugates them for it. The problem arises only when menstruation or reproductive anatomy are used to misgender trans men or exclude [women who don’t bleed].”

The assumption wasn’t that every individual trans woman takes issue with women discussing their anatomy, so “I don’t have a problem with it” is not an argument. I mean, you’re obviously free to say it to get people off your back about it, but it does not debunk radfem concerns when there absolutely are trans women who believe it’s “terfy” and “exclusionary” to talk about issues that only affect “cis” women. That last point is a funny one, despite all the inclusive language trans women regularly forget that menstruation is not a cis thing. And that’s an issue Natalie appears to suffer from too, unless this was unfortunate phrasing and we were just meant to assume that trans men talking about periods is not up for discussion. Either way, it’s clear that inclusive language is clunky to everyone, the mistakes that are acceptable to make just depend on which side you’re on.

CONCERN EIGHT: TERF IS A SLUR

Natalie uses an interesting definition of “slur” here: “a pejorative that targets someone’s race, religion, gender, or sexuality”. I say interesting because I can’t find it anywhere. I could find “an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.”, “an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo”, “a derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people”, but not hers. Presumably because she made it up herself (and haf-assedly at that, did you forget disabled people exist Natalie?) knowing that all of the former definitions would, in fact, consider TERF to be a slur.

Now I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of the whole “TERF is a slur” thing. I’ve seen someone use that to say “if you call me TERF I can call you tranny”. I don’t think being called a TERF (which I have plenty of experience with) should be considered to be comparable to being called a tranny or a bitch. TERF has become essentially meaningless and is an inaccurate term roughly 95% of the time it’s used, but it is meant to have a meaning (”this person excludes trans people from their feminism”), whereas other slurs don’t tend to have any message aside from “this person belongs to a minority and I want to insult them for it”. I’m not ignorant to the fact that it’s often used as a synonym for “lesbian” though, and that it absolutely is used insultingly and with the intent to ruin a person’s reputation, so I’ll stay in my lane on that.

After comparing “gender critical” to “race realist” and mentioning a general refusal to use these terms as to not legitimise bigotry, Natalie explains that she has very little patience for “TERF requests for linguistic decorum” because of the “maximally hurtful, harmful, and insulting” language that radfems use to talk about trans people (eg, referring to transition-related surgeries as mutilation, and the terms “TIM” and “TIF”).

I have some thoughts on this because, while I fucking hate these terms, Natalie’s disdain for them is hypocritical. She just acknowledged that using certain language legitimises the ideologies behind them, and that’s exactly why “TIM” and “TIF” were born. Referring to trans women as trans women while also insisting that woman means adult human female, something trans women do not fall under, did not work out well for radfems in the past. Conceding linguistic ground merely for the sake of respect essentially meant they’d instantly lose that argument, an argument that is in fact extremely important for feminism. I justify using technically incorrect terms (including pronouns) to refer to trans people because I’m trans myself, I understand what it’s like to be dysphoric and I believe that signaling that level of respect can at times be essential to get people to listen. But this is not an apolitical issue and as much as I despise being referred to as a “TIF”, I can’t blame that term’s existence on hatred.

Natalie concludes her video by being “real” about what the core of the gender critical movement is actually about: transphobia. Visceral disgust and hatred for trans people’s very existence.

And you know, for some people that definitely is the case. But this isn’t where I concede that I’ve been faking trandom to give credibility to my transphobia, or where I break down, admitting that I’ve based my entire political stance on pure self hatred (I mean lord knows I have enough of it, but nah that’s not what happened). The reality is that there are gender critical trans people (including trans women), and I’d dare suggest that we are not the only ones who believe in gender critical ideology for reasons other than transphobia.

In conclusion, this video is just another rebuttal against a strawman of “TERF beliefs” which never even attempts to treat them as genuine, only as ignorance that is easily educated away, or hatred that can’t be argued with regardless. I can’t say I’m disappointed with this video (it’s certainly not lower quality than I’d expect from contrapoints) but I am disappointed with the political climate where this is the furthest any outsider is willing to go to debate against gender critical ideology.

#anon #gender critical #contrapoints

21 notes · View notes

manfeels-park · 6 years

Text

RuPaul-ing behaviour

Content note: discussions of transphobia, misogyny, and of bodies as male- or female-coded

So the RuPaul thing is being approached from so many angles that it can be hard to see the wood for the trees.

The response to his 'apology' tweet has been understandably mixed, but also confused. People have said "It wasn't an apology" - which is true. They've also accused him of refusing to take responsibility though, and that's exactly what he did do:

"I understand and regret the hurt I have caused."

He does take responsibility for causing hurt. He says he regrets that he hurt people. But he's neither sorry he said it, nor taking it back. This was deliberate. He may well be listening, as he claims, but at this point we have to assume his stance is unchanged: RuPaul will not have people with female-coded bodies on his show.

Erin and I (hi, Mo here) only started watching Drag Race late last year and pretty much blitzed through the selected highlights (as curated by our live-in houseboy), seeing the years of progression and development in the Drag Race brand in the space of a few weeks.

From the way some of our friends had talked about the show I half-expected it to be teeming with trans people and so-called 'bio' (note: gross term) queens by the most recent season, so the incremental shift we saw instead was a little surprising - a couple of women coming out as trans on the show, usually right before (or after) leaving, and one woman who was out as trans from the start, in nine seasons (and three seasons of All Stars). (I’m aware there are NB/GQ folk too but I haven’t heard of any having had surgical affirmation.)

Truth: I've always looked sidelong at drag queens. I acknowledge their importance to parts of the LGBT community, but for me personally it's always felt discomfitting that the oppressive identity foisted upon me by my superficial biology is a figure of fun when performed by (usually) cis men. That impression has softened watching RPDR. Seeing (and hearing) what drag means for even the cis men who engage with it has made me sympathetic to the other side of the debate, and though I wouldn't say I'm entirely converted I no longer think that's all drag is about, and I'm at least aware of the more subversive types of drag - although they're rarely showcased RPDR itself and when they are it's very sanitised.

But RPDR continually featuring only male-coded bodies just reinforces everything I thought: that drag is a misogynist act by cis men, and not an inclusive, subversive fucking of performative gender at all.

One of RuPaul's most famous aphorisms - "We’re born naked, everything else is drag" - is one that really resonates for me, on a level - it's essentially Judith Butler without the nuance. But Judith Butler doesn't have a massively popular TV show.

I think we all get why he'd want to restrict RPDR’s representation, whether we'd admit it or not. He claims it's because this is drag at its most 'dangerous' and 'ironic', that only in seeing 'men' drag as women do we say ‘fuck you’ to masculinity.

(Note: he says ‘men’ but he doesn’t seem to care whether they’re men, non-binary or women, only that their amab bodies are largely still male-coded.)

But let’s admit it, ultimately it's because that is drag at its most populist, dramatic and superficially impressive: the male-bodied person transforming into a hyperfeminine person. The idea that a trans (or cis) woman performing hyperfemininity isn't ironic and thought-provoking and radical is transparently preposterous and RuPaul must, must know that.

(Oh, and while we're here, what about post-op trans men? Can they be drag queens? What about pre-op but post hormones trans men? What about trans men who've had top but not bottom surgery? Do they literally make prospective contestants drop trou at the audition to check their junk?)

"So, okay, that's just how Drag Race is then," you might say, "nobody is saying that's how drag actually is."

But here's the thing: in theory RuPaul is saying that it's totally fine for there to be 'bio' and trans queens, and only that they can't go on Drag Race if they have female-coded bodies because Drag Race’s thing is male bodied people doing drag. In doing so of course he also draws a distinction between pre- and post-op trans women, which is also epically problematic. But it gets worse.

Because in practice it seems pretty well established at this point that in the USA at least, RPDR is basically a gateway to a new pay bracket for queens, and to the international market. It's not the end-all be-all, but it's a massive leg-up for queens to have been on RPDR. That’s why we've for several seasons now been seeing queens on there who clearly don't really want to do a reality TV show but feel they have to if they want to get ahead in their profession. And RuPaul knows that. In other contexts 'Mama Ru' revels in her status as the ultimate Drag Matriarch, shepherding these baby queens onward to stardom.

So RuPaul can say all he likes that he believes drag should be inclusive even if RPDR is not, but through his actions he single-handedly and deliberately maintains a glass ceiling for female-coded-bodied drag queens.

In one profoundly misjudged tweet, he compared the whole thing to the Olympics:

"You can take performance enhancing drugs and still be an athlete, just not in the Olympics."

Funny thing is it kinda is like the Olympics, though not in the way he suggests. The Olympics' approach to gender and performance is arbitrary, unfair, transphobic and misogynistic.

Just like RuPaul's Drag Race.

How's THAT for irony?

#RuPaul #rupaul's drag race #intersectionality #rambling #help I think I've forgotten how to tumblr

74 notes · View notes

bootyprince999 · 6 years

Text

a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.Okay uh, sorry this has been rattling around in my brain for too long, and i already kNOW when some certain people read this they’ll probably spam me with reasons why i’m wrong but i can’t help but notice a trend in the people policing trans people and as a trans man i think i have to right to voice my opinion about it yes? no? Well it doesnt matter im doing it anyway.

(fair warning, if my wording is off or if sentences et confusing; the word im using is not the right definition, i apologize im just cranking this out and have a hard time with words getting mixed up anyways, gomen)

Alright so uh

I’m sure people who aren’t truscum have probably heard of truscum right? Trans-exclusionary feminists (usually) saying what trans people (predominantly trans MEN , this is important) must do/feel/think in order to really be trans. If they dont they get called transtrenders and cis women ‘crying out to feel important’

well alright theres lots to dissect here but just uh, its overwhelming at first glance. I mean, cis people telling trans people what to do in order to ‘really’ be trans is about at the same line of white people trying to tell really any poc how to be their race or something. Its asinine and just confusing?? I thought we were past this??

But most of these ‘truscum’ people are only really targeting trans-men. To say they’re targeting the trans community is a bit off because from what i’ve seen of them, (correct me if im wrong it’d make this even more interesting if they were harassing trans women too with their similar rhetoric) they’re creating terms for and attacking feminine presenting trans-men, calling them ‘tucutes’ (which im still fuzzy on the definition for mostly cause its just stupid) and also then again calling them just cis women trying to be cool or something. But i feel i should note not all truscum are just cis-women, some of them are trans-men as well which is surprising to me but also, with my experience as a trans-man im also kinda not surprised. I’ll get into that later.

So to start just, these ‘truscum’ people seem to have their main targets being trans-men but also nonbinary people as well, claiming that nb people are not trans and claiming that effeminate trans-men are not real men because men are not effeminate and to even be trans you have to have ‘dysphoria’ (which is technically right but, the definition truscum give is not really correct? pls stick with me on this ill explain) and how HRT makes you hyper masculine and so femm trans-men and nonbinary people should not try to or have any acess to it at all and it should be reserved for REAL trans men who wanna be very manly because HRT can and will only make u super masculine and theres absolutley no way you can use hormone therapy or reconstructive gender therapy to be androgynous as some nb people seek. (even though AMAB NB people haves used hormones to do this, and AFAB NB people have used hormones and surgery to do this as well. But you know, theyre really only attacking trans-men when they do this anyways so they probably dont know or care to know about that.)

Well lets sorta back track a second here on like, the basic definition of trans you get when u first tell kinda any doctor/counselor/therapist that you feel like youre a different gender. “Some trans people undergo hormone replacement or sexual reassignment surgery to help themselves align their bodies to their real gender, but some trans people don’t because they dont want to change their bodies and thats okay!” So yeah, even the oldschool mid ‘2010′ era definition doctors and people used made room for people who were okay with their bodies but still felt trans! Still felt like the classic “man trapped in a womans body” thing of whatever (even though thats a gross metaphor but you get my point)

So when did people suddenly decide that the definition was different? that trans people now should be uncomfortable and change their bodies otherwise their not trans? I don’t know when it started or why though i suspect with the few trans-men who are truscum it could have maybe started with things like this;

-the reddit term of transtrender coming up to invalidate trans people (again predominantly trans men) for their identity.

-the few trans people who do undergo transition and either through maybe doctors not giving them enough information and giving them a higher dose, their body not reacting to it well, or somehow getting acess to transitioning fast enough that they really were actually in a transitional period of their lives where perhaps they were feeling they were trans but were maybe going through something during that point in their lives, or perhaps the changes the HRT gave them were unsatisfying and they wanted something different. (This is usually pretty rare though considering most trans people have to undergo usually at least 4 years of waiting for any hormone treatment, which involves going through lots of doctors and therapists and having to really talk about how trans you are for years, and any sign of even being slightly loose in your definition of gender “i feel liek guys can like cute girl things too” can often get you pushed back for treatment. IDK where these people are getting fast acess to hormone treatment cause ive never found any)

- Trans-men who perhaps have internalized a lot of the toxic masculinity that can sometimes get pushed onto you trying to prove you’re enough of a man for people. Before the definition of truscum even exsisted i’ve had to deal with people like this face to face and it made me get a lot more aggresive standoffish and downright rude with people because i was just trying to act like what i thought men should act like. And given this was in my early teen years, what early teen males are fed of what men act like, i was a fucking nightmare yeah. I’ve seen some transmen who sorta internalize this stuff and get the woman-hating too, I had a time sort of in middleschool era where i was really gross about girls and their bodies and just, I can totally see transguys maybe buying into an idea of hating on feminine guys the same way cis guys hate on femm cis guys.

-the above could also include cis women so just, in general people with internalized misogyny because again, this is all so targeted at calling DFAB people not good enough and not trans enough

So yeah, theres obviously been some people unhappy with people and sort of misunderstanding things about being trans. But to be fair, a lot of the definitions of things relatng to being trans, esp the ‘dys-’ words have been left pretty confusing. So lets try to go over them and maybe now i can clear up why these ‘truscum’ people are both somewhat correct in saying you need to have dysphoria to be trans, but also not really because they sort of have their terms wrong...

dysphoria:”a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.” -Google

dysmorphia/body dysmorphia: “the obsessive idea that some aspect of one's own body part or appearance is severely flawed and warrants exceptional measures to hide or fix their dysmorphic part on their person.” -Wikipedia

Gender dysphoria: “a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.” -Psychiatry.org

So, according to the main definition of Gender Dysphoria, it can encompass both the feelings of dissatisfaction and almost detachment to life of Dysphoria and the detachment and detest of Body Dysmorphia. Also to have Dysmorphia you sort of have Dysphoria inherently with the way your quality of life and enjoyment of your own goes down with the fact you cant change something thats such a part of your being. Dysphoria and Dysmorphia playing in art with one another is especially common with trans people. So I think that these ‘truscum’ people are sort of confusing the definition of Gender Dysphoria. Theyre implying and pushing that it’s all about the “being uncomfortable with their body” when its both that and the “being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.”

So by definition, to be trans you do have to have Dysphoria, or particularly Gender Dysphoria yes. BUT, Gender Dysphoria does NOT mean hating and wanting to change your body for lots of trans people! Not liking being reffered to as a certain gender, or partaking in the behaviors expected of it, clothes, activities, jobs, items, milestones, if you feel detached from it and like its really not you that by definition means you have Gender Dysphoria and so you are trans. And yes NB are trans, tons of them relate to the definition of Gender Dysphoria both the Dysphoria and Dysmorphia parts of them.

I also feel like adding that to say that trans men or trans women need to be aligning completely with the gender they identify with (as both truscum and some doctors still do), there are plenty of cis-gender people who feel that gender is a bit fluid and that cis-men and cis-women can have traits of the other and behave sort of in the middle. So for trans people to not be able to do the same, when trans men are and often feel in the same ways that these cis men do, and vice vera for trans women, its kind of transphobic man. You’re putting up unreasonable and downright unnesesary ideals for trans people to uphold to prove themselves that cis-people don’t even have to. If cis-people can have a looser idea on gender expression and can have diff gender expression (expressing/dressing in a different gender while still feeling like the gender you identify/are born with) then trans people should to.

Like me, i’m a trans men who has feminine gender expression! Truscum would probably call me a trender or a ‘tucute’ for that. But, I have hORRIBLE Body Dysmorphia because of my Gender Dysphoria. Have since i was like 11, And i want to undergo both top and bottom surgery to alleviate it all. So, hows that for “fem trans guys are just tucutes, you have to have dysphoria to be trans” I have it and im still fem bitch.

But yeah, i just keep seeing so much of this, even from people i used to consider friends and just, i wanted to put my 2 cents in on it. If you have Gender related Dysphoria or Dysmorphia, you’re gonna know about it best. And if you dont want to have to have the scary part of de-transitioning because medical transition wasn’t right for you because you identifying as one thing was wrong and you actually identify as something different, I reccomend maybe sitting on those feelings before doing anything for like 5-7 years. Sounds like a long time, but i mean from when you first start getting the feelings of Gender Dysphoria and Dysmorphia. It’s still honestly so rare for people to detransition though and feel like a whole diff gender, ppl usually detransition when they feel like their hormones are going further than they want (and then later fix their dose with their doctor) of to avoid public shaming and are still trans so yeah.

Hopefully no ones too upset with this (unless theyre a terf or truscum) but yeah, thats my word on it.

#trans #t/w #transphobia #dysphoria #truscum

2 notes · View notes

granvarones · 7 years

Photo

Louie: So where did you grow up?

Freddy: I was born in West Covina, California and was raised by both my parents in La Puente, California but when my parents divorced my mom moved to Phoenix, Arizona, which is where I spend most of my time now. We moved to a somewhat rural town that has primarily Black and Latinx populations where the white people live in the nice neighborhoods and the people of color lived in the "other neighborhoods." I almost never interacted with white people. My classmates were always people of color with a sprinkle of white people every now and then. However, growing up here was a living hell.

Louie: How so?

Freddy: The first time I was ever bullied was in 5th grade when someone wrote "FAG" in one of my notebooks and it just got worse from there. At that point in my life I knew I was gay but just tried not to think about it and I was also pretty religious so I tried to "pray the gay away.” It didn’t work (lol). 7th grade was the worst year of my life because I was physically, emotionally, and psychologically bullied every single day that resulted in me switching schools. There was not one day where someone wouldn't call me a “fag” or try to fight me because I was "looking at their dick". They would also call me a cocksucker which I never really understood why they called me that because they were just stating a fact. My mom got worried when I came home crying one day from basically being assaulted and we went to the principal and he did absolutely nothing. It was a really dark time for me because even my friends at the time would tell me, "Just come out already" and at that point I just was not ready.

Louie: How did you sustain yourself during that time?

Freddy: I've always used humor to deflect my feelings and emotions so I would just laugh because it was all I could do. In high school it got better but people still would call me a fag and other annoying ass terms. I also dated girls, which blows my mind now but it was the easiest way to deflect rumors. I came out to my friends as bisexual my junior year and my senior year of high school but when I got my first boyfriend and I came out as gay. My friends weren’t surprised but were happy I was living my truth. I came out to my mom October of 2015, which is pretty recent, and while it didn't damage our relationship she doesn’t acknowledge my queerness but it'll take time and I know she'll get there.

Louie: Who was the first person you told actually told?

Freddy: My senior year of high school when I had my first boyfriend. I was so in love with him and because of him I realized that I was gay. I had dated girls before but being with a boy was just so different. I loved this boy, truly, and because of that I wanted to come out and tell everyone I was with him because for once in my life I was happy. One of the most important people in my life is my Grandma on my dad’s side and I decided to tell her first. She did not react the way I expected her to. She told me I was a disappointment to the family and that my family had high hopes for me and now they were gone. She also told me to keep it a secret forever and to never ever tell anyone else. It hurt. It hurt a lot. I cried for a while and told myself I was not going to tell anyone else until I graduated college and had a career. I didn’t talk to my grandma for a while and talked to her for the first time a couple months ago. I do want to have a relationship with her again but every time I see her, her words echo in the back of my head, so it’s a work in progress.

A couple months later I came out to my little brother because one: He is one of the most important people in my life and two: I wanted him to know so I could hookup with guys easier in my room. I told him in the car when I picked him up from school and I remember being so nervous and feeling my heart beat so fast. So I tell him “I’m gay" and he just looked at me and said "Yeah, that’s cool, can we go eat?" I was in shock because it was big secret and he just like curved it completely. Later on he told me he loved me and I lowkey cried because it was the first time a family member had said that. I always look back at that moment because I feel like that’s what coming out should be, not a big deal because I would've reacted the same way if my brother came out to me as straight.

Louie: Did you have any Latino gay men to look up to when you were growing up?

Freddy: I had absolutely zero gay Latino men to look up to. No one is gay in my family except for yours truly. It wasn't until a couple years ago that I found out that I did have a gay cousin but he was kicked out of the family for being gay so he moved to Spain. He reached out to me in 2013 and we talked for a bit but at that time I didn't know he was gay. Unfortunately, he died of AIDS complications a couple months after. I still wish I could have gotten to know him better.

Oddly enough even though my mom is a cis-heterosexual woman, she took a part in developing my queer identity because I felt like she always knew and lowkey supported it. My mom is a very religious woman from El Salvador who fled her home country because it was going through a violent civil war. She came to the States and married my dad but they divorced after 7 years and she raised me as a single mother. Growing up, she always took me shopping and I always helped her pick her outfits and she would always ask me for my opinion. She would always sit me down after her long work shifts and gossiped about her coworkers which I lived for because Latinx chisme is the absolute best. I also remember she would always tell me "Los hombres no sirven para nada" which basically is "men ain’t shit" and would warn me to be watchful of men. Which is why I now have IMPECCABLE fashion (not really), a big ol chismoso, and have always been watchful of the men that try to enter my life.

Louie: What did you think we as a community need to do to survive the next four years?

Freddy: There is so much we need to do as a community to survive the next four years. First we need to talk about anti-blackness in the Latinx community and start by talking to our racist ass family members who are contributing to the problem. The fact that we stay silent when our Tia'sbe saying racist shit is a problem. Also acknowledging our privilege for those of us who are citizens of the United States and stand up for the rights of undocumented immigrants. The easiest thing to do is to stop referring to immigrants as illegal because it paints them as criminals which contributes to this rhetoric that immigrants are dangerous when they're just trying to escape from their home countries that in most cases the US has fucked up. I'm also going to need gay men to stop with this obsession with performing masculinity and femme shaming because its toxic as fuck. I fucking hate it when guys ask me if I'm masc or femme and I’m just like “the fuck???” What does that even mean? Also destigmatize HIV and stop othering those who are HIV+ because it’s dehumanizing as fuck. I’ve heard some pretty ignorant shit about HIV and it’s something that we need to work on. We need to stand up for Trans women of color because the LGB+ community be forgetting that T especially when they are out here dying with a presidential administration who doesn't give a fuck about people of color and even less about the LGBT+ community and even less about our trans siblings. I mention all these problems in our community because in order to survive an oppressive, fascist, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic government, we have to be able to dismantle these in our own communities so we can come together to resist combat and survive the Trump Administration. We literally cannot afford to be silent any longer. This country hates my existence but my existence is also resisting and I am absolutely proud of being a Queer Ecuadorian/Salvadoran man living in a country that despises me. To survive these next four years, we just need to keep living, keep resisting, keep protesting, keep dismantling systems of oppression, keep holding our government accountable, keep being unapologetically Latinx and of course keep being unapologetically queer as fuck.

Freddy Christian Bernardino, Phoenix, AZ

Interviewed and photographed by: Louie A. Ortiz-Fonseca

#thegranvarones #granvarones #queer #gay #latinx #latino #storytelling #portrait #phototgraphy #resist #familia #photojournalism #lgbtq

3 notes · View notes

republicstandard · 6 years

Text

Top Ten Movies You Couldn’t Make Today: 1990's Edition

As John Q's exploration of movies from the 1980s which deserve the Fahrenheit 451 treatment was so popular, we locked him in a dark room with a Netflix account and his weekly allowance of absinthe until he made another glorious slice of borderline-illegal viral content. The kids love lists, and we need the clicks! Thanks John, hope your time in rehab goes well. Here are 10 movies from the 90's that would never be made in our modern, progressive utopia.

10. The Lion King (1994)

As an allegory for mass Third World immigration and the consequent environmental degradation, cultural subversion, tyrannical Marxism, and ultimately population replacement, the film hits way too close to home. It also reinforces gender expectations via the patriarchal right of succession and is, in its portrayal of both the hyenas and Rafiki the mandrill, undoubtedly racist. Despite the setting in Africa, the source material is Shakespearean, and as a Dead White Male, this is strictly forbidden. What, Alice Walker isn’t good enough for you bigots?

youtube

9. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

An all-(white) male ensemble cast? Oh honey, you’re dreaming! Not today, not ever again (unless it’s gay porn, to borrow the joke from Zack and Miri). As an added “bonus,” the film is decidedly anti-egalitarian in orientation, and is replete with a number of homophobic slurs. Deeply troubling stuff, here, folks.

youtube

8. Man of the House (1995)

Easily one of the most culturally appropriative scenes of all time takes place about mid-way through the film in the Boy Scouts-equivalent meeting where the entirely white (possibly minus one ethnically-ambiguous pair) male cast is wearing all manner of headdresses and war paint imitating Amerindians. To add insult to injury, the father-son duos are in a circle and are practicing a kind of “Native American” initiation rite by way of introduction, called the “Naming Ceremony.” I want to unpack how problematic this scene is further, but “I can’t even.”

youtube

7. Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)

The entire premise of the film is built on the decision of a man so desperate to spend time with his children that he enlists his fabulous brother to turn him into a nanny named Mrs. Doubtfire. The problem is that the humor of the film derives almost exclusively from the Robin Williams’s gender-bending and the absurdity of it all, thus, the humor must come at the expense of the Other; Williams’s character’s son completely freaks out after seeing Doubtfire/his dad urinating while standing: “He’s a she, she’s a he, she’s a he-she!” The children quickly turn against Doubtfire. Not very open-minded if you ask me. As Nico Lang wrote for The Daily Dot:

If Mrs. Doubtfire’s casual transphobia is a product of its era, so is its comedy… Mrs. Doubtfire also debuted the exact same month as The Crying Game, another AMPAS favorite that relied on the inherent titillation of transgender bodies…A culture that continues to laugh at “men in dresses” will continue to invalidate the struggles that actual transgender people go through every day, both in and out of the workplace. If our comedy is stuck in the ’90s, our treatment of LGBT people will be, too…What plays well in 1992 reads very differently today. Mrs. Doubtfire was a product of the gender politics of its era, a cultural panic about divorce and men’s declining roles in the home, as well as a deep insecurity about masculinity…Sally Field’s “Mean Mom” is the real threat. Because she wears the pants in the family, Williams’ character has to prove his worth by wearing a dress.

Commenter Gegenny on Reddit’s “r/asktransgender” forum doesn’t necessarily see the film as transphobic so much as nakedly misogynistic, declaring:

It is less transphobic so much as misogynistic. Man is willing to endure the most humiliating thing possible to see his kids, so naturally that means posing as a woman. The aspects of that humiliation are then played for laughs.

The reactions to the film are mixed; some consider it to be transphobic, others, as the quote above exemplifies, consider it “just” misogynistic, and still others say that it is transvestite-phobic. Whichever (or all of the above) the film is, it is definitely hurtful and hateful and should never have been made. As a final note, one could definitely read the “drive-by fruiting” as having homophobic undertones. A very problematic film any way you slice it.

youtube

6. Kindergarten Cop (1990)

More transphobia here. One of the most appalling scenes in all of cinema is when young Joseph, at only 27 months old says, seemingly innocently enough, “Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina!” After being triggered by this shocking ignorance of gender as a social construct when I re-watched the film for the purposes of this article, I was literally shaking. What were they teaching kids in school back then?

youtube

5. Aladdin (1992)

According to The Washington Post, 90% of the lines in the movie go to male characters. For Christine-Marie Liwag Dixon: Nearly a decade after slave Leia appeared in Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi, Princess Jasmine faced similar circumstances in Aladdin. The depiction was no less creepy and no less sexualized, but is made worse by the fact that Aladdin is supposed to be a kid’s movie…To see Jasmine forced into subservience by the evil Jafar is nauseating. It’s not really surprising that Jafar treats women badly, but this scene goes a little too far for comfort in a children’s film, especially after Jasmine uses her feminine wiles to distract Jafar before Aladdin saves the day. Watching the sham seduction take place is gross, but is even more disturbing when you remember how many kids watched this scene without understanding just how messed up it is.

Furthermore, the film shows Arabic society (and Islam by extension given the source material) in a bad light as intractably patriarchal—this is extremely problematic as we all know that anything less than the deification of brown folks is racism, and anything less than hosannas to the heavens for Islam is “Islamophobic,” for it is well-established that Islam is enriching, empowering, peaceful, and tolerant.

(Let us not even get into how even the lyrics to the intro song were considered too racist, and were changed. Tsch, maybe we had 9/11 coming after all -Ed.)

youtube

4. Starship Troopers (1997)

Despite director Paul Verhoeven’s attempt to satirize the source material, Robert Heinlein’s novel is just too strong and the satire falls flat, instead making fascism look way too appealing. In fact, the entire future society was only made possible by the reclamation of Western civilization from the near-abyss of “democracy”; one may choose to remain a civilian with all attendant rights and privileges, but no vote and no ability to stand for public office and certain other professions, or one may earn the franchise through military service for the Federation at the potential cost of their lives. Furthermore, the protagonist of the novel, Juan Rico, is Filipino, whereas Verhoeven intentionally “white-washed” Rico and his friends and family for the film to highlight the overt “Nazism” of Heinlein’s creation. The problem is that, beyond betraying Heinlein’s point that race was largely irrelevant in the Federation (its military predicated exclusively on merit), the actors are all extremely good-looking, and their attractiveness only makes saving humanity from the Bugs while exercising their civic duty that much more, well, attractive.

youtube

3. Hocus Pocus (1993)

From the hook noses to the child sacrifices, the anti-Semitic overtones in this film are extremely problematic. In the opening scene, the local white populace comes with pitchforks to execute the three witches for stealing their children and using them in their rituals, which evokes uncomfortable images of an Eastern European pogrom. For context, Ron Unz explains:

It appears that a considerable number of Ashkenazi Jews traditionally regarded Christian blood as having powerful magical properties and considered it a very valuable component of certain important ritual observances at particular religious holidays. Obviously, obtaining such blood in large amounts was fraught with considerable risk, which greatly enhanced its monetary value, and the trade in the vials of this commodity seems to have been widely practiced.

Additionally, according to Sheikh Khaled Al-Mughrabi, the Jews were killed by the Nazis because they were kidnapping Christian children to use their blood to make matzah.

youtube

2. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994)

The 90s were probably our most transphobic decade. Elena Nicolaou writes:

Trans women in ‘90s comedies like Ace Ventura were often law-breakers who deliberately hid their trans identities, as Meredith Talusan points out in a Buzzfeed article. Consequently, “the exposure of these women becomes synonymous with ‘catching’ them; there’s no meaningful difference made between finding out a woman is trans and discovering that she’s a criminal.”

When Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) finds out that he’s kissed a man dressed as a woman, who also happens to be the villain, he has what Nicolaou describes as “an outrageously transphobic reaction.” He vomits in the shower and sets his clothes on fire. R. Kurt Osenlund recaps:

At the time of this movie’s release, Ace’s revelation was played entirely for laughs, but seen today, it’s basically horrifying. “Finkle is Einhorn!” Ace declares to himself. “Einhorn is a man!” With that, Ace, remembering that Einhorn pinned him on her desk and gave him sloppy kisses, goes into a violent burst of queer panic, purging in the toilet, loading his mouth with toothpaste, taking a plunger to his face, purging some more, burning his clothes, and finally crying naked in the shower, all to the tune of Boy George’s “The Crying Game.” Spying the pre-op trans woman the next day, Ace, still loading his mouth with chewing gum as a disinfectant, notes that “the gun” that was “digging into [his] hip” during the pair’s make-out session was in fact a penis, and he shudders madly at the thought.

The next day, as Nicolaou recaps, “He stages a big sex ‘reveal’ in which he pulls down the character’s pants.” In a thoroughly humiliating transphobic vaudeville show, returning to Osenlund:

Einhorn stands there on display, until, thanks to a tip-off from Marino, Ace grabs his culprit and spins her around, revealing the vivid bulge of a dick and balls that Einhorn had tucked back. Just then, “The Crying Game” picks back up on the soundtrack, and all the males on site begin spitting and cleaning out their mouths, as they too have all locked lips with a woman packing a cock. There is no redemption for Einhorn. She’s knocked into the water and left humiliated all over again—a pathetic loser who deserves to suffer not just for kidnapping, but for the gross crimes of mental instability, sexual deviance, and anatomical otherness.

youtube

If one thing is certain, it is that trans people should be above any and all reproach, even if they are sociopathic criminals. Which leads me to my final film:

1. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

As perhaps the mother of all transphobic films, the portrayal of transgendereds in The Silence of the Lambs as lethality incarnate probably set the LGBTQI+’s agenda to invert heteronormativity-as-deviant back a good decade. As author Mey wrote for Autostraddle:

Perhaps the most famous instance of a trans woman being used to scare audiences is The Silence of the Lambs. When we see serial killer Buffalo Bill in their most famous scene, it is meant to be one of the most jarring and disturbing moments of the film. We see someone who is presented to us as a man tucking their penis between their legs, wearing a wig made from a woman’s scalp, swaying and dancing to music. Growing up, I remember many times hearing that this was one of the strangest and creepiest scenes in modern film. This action of putting on makeup and a wig, tucking and trying to look as beautiful and feminine as you can is something that a lot of us trans women can relate to. It’s something that a lot of us trans women have done. And here it is being presented as the epitome of horror.

youtube

Mey is right—the perfectly benign activity of murdering women in order to skin and scalp them and literally “wear” them is presented here as deviant and horrific.

It’s something a lot of us trans-womyn have done.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2OmWXzs via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes