#not that there isn't scientific proof about trans people

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

"It's not falsely attributing anything."

It is. He didn't coin the term. Attributing it to him is a false attribution.

"He invented the prefix "cis"."

The prefix cis is Latin. He did not invent it. It came from Latin. It means "on this side" or "on the same side". As opposed to trans which means "on the other side" or "so as to change".

"Without him, the term "cisgender" would not exist."

It would exist without him as Dana Defosse didn't know about the term cissexual or about Sigusch. Sigusch could have never been born and the word cisgender would still exist because he had no affect on the creation of the term.

"Whether or not he followed that prefix with "gender" or "sexual" is irrelevant."

It is relevant as it changes the word.

And they do mean the same thing, btw.

They don't.

Cissexual means to have a "mental sex" that agrees with your sex.

Cisgender means to have a gender that agrees with your sex.

The concept of a "mental sex" is based on the idea that gender isn't real, and that sex is mental and psychical (which is false).

Sex and gender are the same thing.

They're not. The term gender was literally created to distinguish and differentiate it from sex.

They're completely interchangeable terms.

How can two terms be interchangeable when one of the terms was literally created to not have anything to do with the first term?

The prefix cis is Latin. He did not invent it. It came from Latin. It means "on this side" or "on the same side". As opposed to trans which means "on the other side" or "so as to change". "Without him, the term "cisgender" would not exist." It would exist without him as Dana Defosse didn't know about the term cissexual or about Sigusch. Sigusch could have never been born and the word cisgender would still exist because he had no affect on the creation of the term.

So you are actually mostly correct about most of this, (cis and trans are actually chemistry terms, too, I found out while I was looking this up) though there's zero proof that Defosse actually coined the term. She claims to, and most people buy that claim, but her sole proof that I've seen is an article she wrote where she says she coined the term on a defunct message board, posts a link, and the link takes you to an old academic book that says "Defosse is generally credited" with coming up with the term. There's no mention of Volkmar Sigusch at all, which could mean that you're correct and she never heard of him, or she did and didn't want to admit she didn't invent the idea of using the prefix cis as an opposite to trans.

However, I still say you're incorrect about the rest of your ask. Gender and sex are the exact same thing. Gender was used to be a different word than sex (I'm assuming this is because sex was starting to become shorthand for intercourse and the scientific and education communities wanted to use a more clinical, less ambiguous term, but don't quote me on that because I haven't looked that up yet) but it still had the same definition. The idea of sex and gender being different was never a thing outside incredibly niche pseudo-scientific academic circles until relatively recently, but that doesn't mean they're different. To date, there is zero physical, scientific proof that "mental gender" even exists. The people who use gender to mean "mental gender" are actually referring to gender roles, which can be based on societal mores and not strict biology, but they're using the word incorrectly. The way they use it is to describe a concept that doesn't exist. The concept that does exist, biological sex, can be described as either sex or gender. So regardless of the intent, the words cissexual and cisgender mean the exact same thing.

Now, having said that, I'll once again admit that I was, at the very least, potentially wrong about the term cisgender coming directly from cissexual. But since there's no definitive proof of where the former word came from that I could find, and I don't take trans or feminist activists at their word without proof, I'm also not going to say that I can't be right, either. But regardless, it's murky enough that if I come across any more posts about the term "cisgender" coming from Sigusch I won't reblog them unless I find some compelling proof that Defosse was inspired by his term.

[foxfairy06]

why do you care about other people’s identities so much? we (trans/queer people) are not going to be respected by cishets no matter what, and we shouldn’t be living for their approval anyway

(also I don’t mean any of this in a rude way, your logic is just strange and I’m trying to understand what you’re actually talking about)

| Why do you care so much

I don't care "so much" I just care. The reason being because they perpetuate false information, a poor view of same sex attraction and trans communities, and erase history of labels.

Nondysphoric norms for instance imply that transitioning is not a need (because if gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria would not exist) to resolve an issue, so it would be cosmetic, meaning tax dollars and insurance will not pay for it.

| we aren't going to be respected by cis/hets no matter what

Yes we are. Not all people who aren't not cishet are evil, and a wavering minority of them are bigoted. HOWEVER people who lay in the middle will become bigoted when they see shit that no one in the right mind would say is scientific. Furthermore people who are supportive may stop being supportive when confronted with xenogenders.

I care only when this does affect people. If you want to call yourself catgender by all means, I won't stop you. It isn't my place. However, it is my responsibility to protect trans rights. So when anti trans bills are passed on the basis of xenogenders (these bills only get passed because neutrals are convinced to be anti xenogender, not anti lgbt, but this ends up harming the trans community), when sex transitional chemicals and surgeries are classified as cosmetic because people want to define gender as a social construct, making being trans a choice, when these harms arise, I have a need to speak up about it.

If what you're doing does no harm, i leave you be.

I have literally converted bigots to supporters because their only reference for what lgbt people are like is based on the idea that gender isn't real, and other inclus arguments.

So to answer your question TLDR, i don't care if it doesn't harm a community's progress, unless there is biological proof you can't change the thing that slows progress in which case we need to convince society.

It's amazing that you want to understand my viewpoint but I can already tell you're asking from a biased perspective. The reason I joined the exclus community is because the exclus community is less angry than the inclus community. The inclus community does more attacking, more harassing, more censorship, and more harm in the community. So I chose this community and chose science.

[delete-the-kisses]

rant about religion/christianity below

i've thought about religion and queerness a lot recently, mostly because my friendgroup now has queer people and also a straight, religious girl.

i used to believe in god. and when i got older i just stopped believing. there was science and evidence and the internet and my baby gay brain was like "woah! i'm not a sinner because none of this shit is real!"

my family apart from my grandma and aunt aren't really religious either. my mom and dad have never repressed me or my identity and haven't tried to make me believe in anything. and don't get me wrong; i don't really have any childhood religious trauma either? so now it's like, why do i of all people care?

but it truly, truly hurts me how much of this whole fucking world is being run by major religion. why is christianity a part of literal fucking social structures? why do they teach religion in public school? (not in every country but mine) why does the president say god bless you in their speech? (once again, could be just my country.)

and another thing that hurts is that it's scientifically proven that being religious can give you brain damage. because religion refuses to change with time and the sole fucking reason humanity has survived this long is adapting to change.

i know there's accepting christians. my friend's family is incredibly accepting. my friend may be allocishet, white and christian and she's one of the most open-minded, kind, amazing people i've ever met. her family is so kind as well.

but then, there are the ones who say that being queer is a mental illness. there are the ones who invite a priest over to cure their child who just came out. there are the ones making anti trans and queer laws and banning pride flags. that's the other extreme.

most christians i've met aren't straight up hateful. they're a calm, civil, hidden kind of hateful who get kind of uneasy when there's discussion around queerness or just... something that doesn't agree with their stance.

and i GENUINELY have trouble understanding how your worldview can be centered around something that there's literally no scientific proof of. sorry (not) if this offensive but to me, it's equivalent to believing in unicorns. but i respect your beliefs and i won't make fun of you for them or hate you for them BECAUSE i refuse to be equally bad.

i also don't understand willingly being a part of something that limits the things you can do. why are you living a restricted life to get into heaven where there truly isn't any certainty that it even exists? how do you blindly trust this? isn't religion just a socially acceptable cult?

and why the fuck do you claim to accept other people's beliefs and religions but the SECOND someone's a satanist you go guns-a-blazing at them. (fun fact: satanism isn't even about the christian satan!) (fun fact 2: no queer person is going to hell for their identity and telling someone they'll go to hell is mean and disrespectful!)

is it TRULY necessary to "spread the gospel" to people? that is literally just shoving your beliefs down other people's throats... the EXACT thing you claim the lgbtqia+ community is doing. or is it only okay since it's your belief?

why are your morals based on your religion? i see shit on social media saying "atheists, what's restricting you from just killing someone if your religion isn't telling you not to?" and maybe that's an extreme example but what do you MEAN "what's restricting you"?! MAYBE MORALS? BASIC HUMAN DECENCY? like... do you find yourself lacking those??? if the bible tells you to hit your wife and support slavery do you do those things??? (the bible probably says both of those lmfao.)

so. that was my rant for today. ain't no hate like christian love, amirite? if you're christian or religious otherwise and find yourself reading this with an urge to comment "jesus loves you" or "god please help her" just save the time. every time i get a comment like that i carve a pentagram on a dead goat! xoxo

(everyone believe whatever the fuck you want i don't care but remember anyone has the right to question it. christianity is the biggest world religion btw and the "oppression" you experience stops existing when you put your phone down. stop whining at it. that's all fr byee)

#religious trauma #religion #atheism #agnostic #atheist #religión #critical thinking #media critique #homophobia #transphobes #xenophobia #christianity #jesus christ #christian faith

[docmothra]

There's an acquaintance of mine who's conservative, and so there's a lot of reasons I don't really agree with him, but one of the things he tends to say is 'rude'. Any situation where one person is being what he sees as impolite to someone else, he'll call it out as rude. Which is fine and dandy in concept. But his concept of rude is weirdly selective. He won't call it rude if someone is making fun of gay people, for instance, or autistic people. But he will call it rude if someone is saying 'yeah you don't know this guy but he's kind of unironically racist and just a dick for the record'. Which sorta reveals it's not really about rudeness, or politeness, because he doesn't actually oppose those in practice. It almost looks like it's about social exclusion - but he pretty much tries actively to exclude the kind of person he thinks should be excluded from society (gay, autistic, furry, trans). It's completely selective. He'll hang the groups he politically disagrees with out to dry, and he'll act as if any other instance of hostility is uncalled for. I don't even know if it's conscious malice, exactly. You could say he never crosses the line of admitting malicious intent, but I don't think that changes the severity of what he's doing. In his head he's built some kind of barrier between things it's okay to be passively hostile towards - including queer people, autistic people, atheism, furries, and left-wing politics in general - and things that it isn't okay to be hostile about - including racism and sexism. Which ties into a different opinion he has that anyone in that category that should-be-outcasts: -Are morally degenerate (due to a warped understanding of what is okay and/or good) -Do not perceive the world correctly (due to their moral degeneracy/warped worldview) -Are dangerous to listen to because they might convince you their worldview is correct -Have no basis for their beliefs at all (because they didn't actually think about them) -Need to be fixed, but don't think they need to be fixed, so they should be tricked into fixing themselves Which plays into a whole long-term disingenous dynamic of goalpost moving where he'll poke and prod at your beliefs, make you feel bad about them, and complain if you: -assert a belief without proof ('lol why would I believe that') -assert a belief with scientific proof ('academic papers are so biased against conservative views they can't be trusted') -assert a belief with theological proof ('like I would trust a non-theology major to read the bible') -assert a belief with anecdotal proof ('you need a peer-reviewed academic paper to have a sample size that's trustworthy') -assert a belief with abstract moral proof ('it isn't biblical so it's fundamentally the wrong basis') -assert a belief with conceptual logical proof (he isn't reading that) -assert a belief as an unproven but personally meaningful concept (that's unconvincing, so you're wrong and you should feel bad about having your wrong opinion) -expect him to read or remember anything you say; express memory of anything he has said in the past (he's not terminally online like you, go touch grass) -express any failure to remember any detail of anything he has said in the past (lol your memory doesn't even exist, why would he listen to you?) -respond to his comments at all (he wasn't here for a big long conversation...) -fail to respond to his comments (very rude how do you expect communication to even happen here if you don't talk???) Anyway, like, that's how this kind of stuff shows up? People are just people, and over time you realize that some of them are dicks. And you also realize that they think anyone who isn't like them is just. Bad. On an inherent level. And then you realize 'holy crap I need new friends'. End rant?

[saltypiss]

Republicans have no standards or morals, they react based on uncomplex emotional nones.

"Guns don't kill people"

We had 39 mass shootings in under 25 days. Every day there has been a mass shooting in 2023. Everyday.

"We need more guns!"

Yet the problem is still guns being Point and Click Kill Tools anyone can get regardless of their history or mental health and soon even age. What scientific Median is the "right" amount of guns? Or are we just gonna make the problem impossible to fix and the country uninhabitable first?

"My body my choice"

They screamed at the top of their decaying covid filled lungs Right Up Until Roe vs Wade got undone. No cohesion, complete clown world, no principles, no morality, not an ounce of thought or reasonability.

"Pedophiles!"

Churches have Child Molestor Insurance but go off.

The republican politicians you suck the toes of are likely convicted sex offenders, that's page 41 btw.

0 drag shows have had any pedophilia. Especially the ones republicans banned at a fucking bar. A Bar.

"Political correctness!"

Tan suit

Dijon mustard

Zelenksy's tan shirt

Republicans voted to make it illegal for women to wear pants in congress.

Republicans boycott a beer company because it had a rainbow on it. They were unsuccessful.

Republicans banned books, a book about a seahorse because it was "woke" when it was biologically factual how it reproduced.

Republicans cried when Rage Against the Machine, turned out to be Raging Against the Machine (republicans)

Republicans steal music all the time. Never pay people either. Have to walk back terroristic claims like pussies.

Republicans so far near solely have been getting arrested over and over for severe levels of corruption Trump Allowed.

There's no real reason to act like political correctness is one sided when one side fails sometimes to recognize actual "isms" while the other side Banned Gays from being mentioned at all in schools.

And banned Trans medical works because of fearmongering with still to this day 0 proof of any claims made.

And banned women's medical procedures because abortion is too hard of a concept to accept as the lesser evil and had to lie doctors have ever aborted a baby instead of always a fetus.

Thinking is against political correctness, both sides are dumb, but only one side is ever successful in causing harm via political correctness.

PC for republicans means solely being white and not mentioning problems that aren't about black people or the libz.

PC for democrats is don't be racist even accidentally or I swear to god I'll make going online not fun for a whooooole month! But only sometimes. Not remotely always. Usually mislead, usually backtracks and apologizes. Usually some degree learn from their mistakes and move on.

Never republicans. They do, forget, move on.

Point is, republicans have no platform other than blind hatred. Killing black people isn't fixing the economy or roads. Killing trans people isn't solving poverty. Killing immigrants isn't helping anyone get a job.

But that's republicans for ya. Is it even terrorism if you make terrorism your party platform that 30% of the country, 50% of voters, accept? Obviously yes, but ask a republican in various ways and the answer becomes a proud, ignorant, hateful: "No"

#gop hypocrisy #republicans #republican terrorism #abortion #guns #point and click kill tools

[clowderofcloudies]

Those biology posts that go look at the crazy ways nature does "sex" and "gender" are equal parts fantastic and infuriating tbh.

Person I just really enjoy learning about animal reproduction and there's so many interesting parts of it and they often bring me new tidbits of information but on the other hand....

From a science standpoint some weirdly broad assumptions are definitely being made. For example the post I just reblogged is equating different mating strategies with different sexes. It is a possible interpretation but like oh man that's gonna require so many levels of digging to actually be legit. An interesting line of inquiry to be sure but far from proof of animals having more than two sexes.

Additionally.... terfs don't give a fuck. I know everyone says it'll piss off the terfs but in reality? I think tumblr has created a version of terfs that doesn't really exist. Yes clearly we have all seen a few that get weird about it but it's just as easy for them to turn around and say well that's birds/lizards/fish and it isn't applicable to humans. Their whole worldview is based upon their belief in the biological purity of women and evil of men. And if the science disproves it they will just ignore it because that's convenient to them and also you don't just take a core belief and throw it out the window because of some snappy biology post on tumblr.

These posts are always rife with comments about pissing off the terfs or scientifically "proving" trans people are natural and neither of those actually feel good tbh. It feels like people think they've done something by reblogging a post but they've reblogged a post. It doesn't keep terfs or their ideology at bay. And also my experience is real to me and I don't need to validity of that "proved" by some birds no matter how cool they are.

#trans people need real world support not whatever the fuck is going on in those posts #this is mostly a vent post #don't reblog please #idk I'm just feeling some things about it tonight i guess

[bookish-bi-mormon]

Really love how a lot of conservative Christians will be like “you don’t need physical proof to know something is true” and then turn around and be like “your physical body is proof that you are your AGAB and it’s impossible that you could be anything else” like ....???? 

#you can accept a feeling as proof that God exists #but when it comes to gender you're suddenly all about science and physical proof #not that there isn't scientific proof about trans people #but you wouldn't accept it anyway #idk if this makes sense I'm just mad #transness only makes sense to me from a spiritual perspective tbh #rachel's ramblings #religion #queerstake #tumblrstake

[uncanny-tranny]

Hi Toby! I've been investigating a bit about how trans people are 'made' but i'm honestly just. Really Confused. Are trans people born trans (for example "female brain, male body") or are they *made* trans? Because I always see people saying gender is a social construct, and I believe them, but then how come science says we have "different brains"? And what about non-binary people?

I don't think non-binary people, like, CHOOSE to be non-binary, but more like... I guess they grow up in a gendred environment and if they don't fit in they identify with the label (or the experience if they don't have the right word)... Is that the same for binary trans people? Maybe you don't even know, and you're free to ignore this ask. Mostly I just want to know so I can explain it to my parents if I ever come out to them, but I don't want to use the transmed theory because, 1, I'm not a transmed, and 2, I'm non-binary, and of course, how would they believe me? Anyways if they don't believe me that's their problem honestly. I'll be out when I have a house and a stable job and a dog and mommy can't kick me out 😌

Thanks for reading so far, have an awesome day because you're awesome honestly, and sorry for the long ask!!

I personally think it's more complicated than a "nature vs. nurture" for many trans people, because I think transness transcends (no pun intended) those ideas. It's highly personal - for me, my gender dysphoria informs my identity, but so also does my joy.

As for the gendered brain studies, there have definitely been criticisms of such studies, and in fact, these studies certainly have created unnecessary rifts when we throw trans people into the mix. The idea that the brain itself is gendered and that is what makes trans people valid is, in my mind, a roundabout way of saying something similarly problematic, such as "dysphoria makes you trans." I certainly see the appeal of trying to find reasons that trans people are real and valid scientifically, but not if it can be used to exclude others. I don't know if you remember this, but I remember when the gendered brain was a huge argument for trans peoples' validity, and many people thought that in order to "test" I'd somebody was really trans, they'd have to have a brain scan done. Needless to say, that is an atrocious idea.

I think the important thing is to listen to trans people on an individual basis because of how personal being trans can be. As a comparison, it's like assuming all wheelchair users use wheelchairs for the same reason and have the same needs. All that does is leave out people who don't fit into that viewpoint. I believe the same can be said for trans people. However you experience transness isn't bad, however, it would be the same across the board.

Maybe there is some hard science for transness, maybe there's a ton of nurture that means somebody has a higher chance of identifying as trans. It's hard to say, I think. Regardless, there shouldn't need to be "proof" that means we can be validated and treated as equals. If you come out, friend, I encourage you to just say it from the heart. Sometimes, you don't need to prove yourself. It is okay to just be. Without hesitation, or fear, or justification.

#ask #trans #transgender #lgbt #lgbtq #ftm #mtf #nonbinary #i hope the second paragraph doesn't come across as accusatory - i totally get the appeal of those studies... #...though i have a lot of reservations about them personally that the article i linked explains well... #...plus i hesitate to use the argument because of the sheer amount of times it's been used to exclude/be transphobic towards others... #...i used to be paranoid that my brain wasn't 'male enough' for me to identify as a man... #...so i guess for me it's just an argument that i want to leave behind #but i don't blame you at all for citing the existence of those studies

[ugh-fml]

honestly I have no idea what you’re talking about when you ask for “science” behind nonbinary people and their experiences… are you saying you didn’t know/don’t think nonbinary people have always existed? it’s literally the exact same way that trans people have always existed. and gay, bi, lesbian etc. literally exactly the same. but you have some weird prejudice against nonbinary people specifically for no reason other than “i don’t understand them so i must use my whole blog to attack them”

Here is a transgender study that links similarities brain activity to mtf to female:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18761592/

"Conclusions: We revealed a cerebral activation pattern in MTF transsexuals compared with male controls similar to female controls compared with male controls during viewing of erotic stimuli, indicating a tendency of female-like cerebral processing in transsexualism."

There are many other studies that link similar activity in cis brains as transgender brains of the same gender, this is just one I found in less than one minute.

____________________________________________________________

Here's one suggesting that there are biological factors in homosexuality:

https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62

Conclusions: "The observation that FucM-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior appears to be due to the neurodevelopmental changes in preoptic area of mutant brain resembling a wild-type male. Since the previous studies indicate that AFP plays a role in titrating estradiol that are required to consolidate sexual preference of female mice, we speculate that the reduced level of AFP in FucM-/- mouse, presumably resulting from the reduced fucosylation, is responsible for the male-like sexual behavior observed in the FucM knock-out mouse."

Basically in layman's terms, prefrence was found to be linked to fucose mutarotase in rats. Female rats were attracted to female odors and preferred to mount other females rather than males. Again there are more studies like this, but again, I just found this with a quick google search.

____________________________________________________________

All nonbinary studies I could find were simply based on surveys on how many identify/how healthcare impacts them

ex. One in four LGBTQ youth surveyed identify as nonbinary, say researchers at the world's largest suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning young people.

So what I'm saying is, as of right now, there is no biological basis/medical proof of nonbinary people. When that comes out, okay fine, I'll go support it with all my heart. But right now, it literally has no grounding in scientific research at this point. And because of that, I personally cannot believe or support it. And by the way, I want you to understand that me making this post AND trying to find sources to support your opinion IS me trying to understand it. I just took the time out of my day to try and find some actual proof and evidence for you because I genuinely want to understand it. At the same time, though, seeing an influx of teens claim that they have no gender (or varying and conflicting definitions of that) isn't enough for me to blindly accept it and advocate for something that honestly is harmful to my community.

#ask #nonbinary #transgender #gay #lesbian #trans #nb #enby #research #discorse #lgbt discorse #lgbt

[vampish-glamour]

Aight I have a small confession and nobody to confess this to so uhh...

I support the concept of being non-binary but the people who use the label are usually so misinformed about what gender even is that I just cannot fully support it...in general. It is so rare to find a NB person above the age of 30 (for context I'm in my early twenties but I prefer speaking with older folks), who doesn't use the infantilizing (imo) "eNbiE/eNbY" label, isn't what I like to call ~fake violent~, isn't a "QIA2S++ [or "qUeEr community"] person" (y'all know what I mean), doesn't use neo"pronouns", and doesn't use the unnecessary and offensive (imo) "transmasc/transfem" labels.

I have never, never met nor seen a NB person who simply wasn't a man or woman, uses they/them, and is chill. Like istg it's literally just masculine women who don't understand that being gnc/masculine/what have you is literally just...normal sh¡t....that...doesn't mean you're less of a woman. Vise versa for feminine men who like feminine things & dye their hair once and think they must not be "fully male" or something. But nah bro "down with cis" is literally the NB motto. 👊🏻😔

Also, back when I was active in lgbt discourse circles, I used the acronym "lgbt+" just so inclusionists considered having actual conversations with me without every debate turning into them throwing a fit about my usage of "lgbt" and not using "lgbtqia2sppqrstuvwxyz+++" or, god forbid, "qUeEr".

I would support the concept of it if there were some sort of scientific proof of a nonbinary brain in the same way they’ve proven how trans people’s brains work, if that makes sense. Like I’m open to the possibility that it could be a thing scientifically… although I agree with the stance that so far the science done on this sort of thing kind of makes it unlikely for nonbinary to exist in the same way transsexualism does.

But my dislike of how the majority of “nonbinary” people treat the subject of gender makes it really hard for me to be open to it at all. I honestly have such frustration and annoyance towards the nonbinary community because they really do push harmful bullshit. They rely solely on gender roles, stereotypes, and “you’re not a woman if you’re not feminine, and you’re not a man if you’re not masculine”. It’s sexist and it’s wrong.

And there’s a sort of quirkiness, for lack of better word, that goes along with it. Everything you mentioned—the unironic “enbie/enby”, the “I’m gonna smash your kneecaps uwu”, the q slur usage and alphabet soup, unnecessary (I agree offensive) labels like “transmasc/transfem”—THAT ONCE AGAIN RELY ON GENDER STEREOTYPES!!!—, neopronoun usage, MOGAI support, etcetera etcetera.

It’s clearly an accessory, fashion statement, political statement, social statement, or all of the above for the majority of enbies.

I’m sure that there are people out there who genuinely believe they have no gender and are chill about it. But they’re drowned out by the rest, who are absolutely just gnc people who think that you can’t be a gnc man or a gnc woman.

I used to use “lgbtq+”, then I think I went to “lgbt+”, and now I exclusively use “lgbt”. It is absolutely a reflection of my belief that only homosexuals, bisexuals, and trans people are lgbt. And if people have a problem with that, I really don’t care.

#asks #anon

[nondysphoric--enby]

*Cites several different medical and trans health organizations and information groups*

Truscum: the APA is in there! 😤 Don't you know, they think drag queens are Trans! (they don't, they were briefly mentioned in a passage on trans identities to mention that most drag queens are actually cis and aren't trans due to what they're doing. I say "most" because some trans people do still use the title of drag king or queen despite gender because identities can be complicated.)

Okay. *Cites the other organizations*

Truscum: No! You cited the APA, and if all these other organizations and gender identity clinics agree with them then they're all bad too! You tucutes don't know how to cite accurately, unlike us. Science isn't on your side! Brain scans prove-

1: Brain scan studies don't prove what you claim they do. 2: *Cites a brain scan study that explicitly included non-dysphoric trans people and came to the same "conclusion" that our brains matched the gender we said we are*

Truscum: AHA, you were just talking about how brain scan studies aren't valid, and now you use one?! This is PROOF, you tucutes flip flop to whatever is convenient, never actually proving yourselves!!😤😡 Blocked because you'll obviously never listen to REASON or SCIENCE. But before I leave- *sends a masterpost of links from Tumblr posts, Instagram, Kalvin Garrah, or other non-professionals writing think pieces without any credentials or backing. Or, scientific studies that aren't even on this topic and only briefly mention dysphoria, but don't come to the conclusion they claim it does* Tucutes need to learn to READ😂

Truscum are immature edgelords who can't accurately cite if their lives depend on it, but that's for a reason.

statistically, they ARE mostly kids, which explains so much.

#mentioned sources are linked in my bio #truscum are utterly ridiculous children who are edgelords #truscum #tucute #trans #transmed #transition #pride #transmedical #transmedicalism #transtrender #trumed #tucute positivity #lgbtqia #queer #truscum positivity #transitioning #trans discourse #transgender #you need dysphoria to be trans #lgbt #transphobia #truscum cw #truscum mention #truscum tw #discourse #tw: dysphoria #anti transmed #anti truscum #im a bit miffed right now

[michaelmilkers]

hi! I identify as truscum/transmedicalist but after looking at your blog for a few minutes I'm starting to reconsider. I've always been a stickler for science which is why I believe the way I do. How do you define trans scientifically? is it a mental illness or something else? I just want to hear more from you about why dysphoria isn't a defining role in being trans so I can learn more from those I claim to disagree with. thank you for your time!

it is not a mental illness because a mental illness is defined by its effect on the persons life, i.e. consistent distress and impaired functioning. we only call gender dysphoria a mental illness/medical condition so transitioning can be covered by insurance. i do not believe medicalizing being trans and the experiences associated with being trans is the right way to go, but thats what we have to do because just being trans isnt enough for people to take us seriously, we have to have some kind of disorder in order for doctors to give us the time of fucking day.

also dysphoria is nowhere near a uniform experience. mental illnesses have a clearly defined list of symptoms and you must experience a certain number of them in order to qualify for a diagnosis, but dysphoria is all over the place. i dont have body dysphoria but having a period makes me want to curl up and die from dysphoria. the next trans guy you ask has a different experience, and so will the next one.

in terms of the science behind it its just a thing people are born as, like being gay. its just the way some people are wired. people have found that in some cases trans peoples brains are more similar to the brains of cis people of their gender than the brains of their assigned gender, which is super cool, but again i feel like medicalizing it and continuously trying to pinpoint why were Like This is rly invalidating. like i said before, it feels like just being trans isnt enough for people, you have to show them some kind of proof.

emphasizing dysphoria so much simplifies being trans down to this one thing, and when dysphoria is the thing that makes you a Valid Trans we get into territory of some people being more trans than others. is a trans guy who wants top surgery but not bottom surgery bc he doesnt have bottom dysphoria less trans than a guy who wants both? is a trans guy who chooses to stay at a 5 mL dose of testosterone even though he can go higher because his dysphoria has already lessened less trans than a trans guy who does a higher dose because he has more dysphoria? some truscum say im faking, even though ive been on testosterone for 2+ years and have my name and gender marker legally changed, simply because i like being trans and wouldnt want to be cis. the definition of a Real Trans is radically different between different people anyway. trying to draw a line somewhere and weed out fakers becomes a witch hunt for people who dont fit the Trans Checklist, and the insistence that transtrenders are a huge problem makes trans people worry and question themselves, adding to the problems theyre already dealing with.

also making dysphoria the defining feature of being trans really sweeps all the hard work people have done to create a community under the rug. when i think of being trans i dont think of dysphoria, i think of a community and the people ive met in it and i think of self-love and activism. i think of all the ways we are defying expectations and what society pushes that we “should be” and how strong we are. i think of the impact i have, even if its just on the people around me. 

invalidating and putting down other trans people wont make cis people treat us any better. so id rather spend my time advocating for other trans people and lifting them up.

#Anonymous

[snow-lives--matter]

Hey there amigo friend matey pal I saw you tagged my ask as anon hate and I really didn't mean it as hate I was just trying to tell you buddy compadre friendo that maybe being mean to people and telling them their identities aren't valid and things like that maybe isn't the best way to go about things partner and that maybe you'd feel better if you were nicer and the reason I'm on anon is because I don't want your followers to see that I'm nonbinary and send me death threats

Find me any legitimate scientific proof for nonbinary genders and I’ll believe they’re real. It’s that easy. You claim that my life would be better if I was nicer to people, and yet you pathetically send multiple anons to someone you apparently hate, and then check back to see if you got a response. A bit hypocritical don’t you think? I’ll be nice to anyone who’s nice to me, but certainly not to people who make a mockery of the trans community and then call me transphobic for calling them out on it. And while I certainly don’t condone sending death threats I’m not responsible for my followers actions. It’s a shitty thing to do, but it’s not my fault if they do it.

#message me privately if you don't want my followers knowing who you are #because I'm not answering anymore of these asks #they're not worth my time #/ #ask #anon #don't worry I'm sure you'll grow out of your fake gender once you turn 13 #anon hate #gender #nonbinary #hypocrisy

[saltypiss]

What's funny about the abortion thing is that the republican politicians couldn't come up with a good reason to vote for them. None at all.

Because they know banning abortion is just a bad thing for people, there is no way to actually argue against abortion.

Seriously, all they have is "It's killing someone!" But the opposite side has statistics, science, evidence, history, basic empathy and reasoning skills, basic understanding of pregnancy and the procedures and after effects, how poor the adoption process both is and how bloated it is with no takers, and half the voting base.

You can't argue with emotion when that emotion is you being a fucking pussy and not giving a shit about the actual harm being caused, entirely and solely because thinking of just the concept of something you'll never ever be involved in makes you mildly irrationally upset. Congratulations, your pussy feelings mean jackshit. The fact is, there is no argument against abortion. There is no argument for republicans. There is nothing. Their entire platform is maniacs rapists pedophiles murderers traffickers and more. There's source after news outlet after investigative journalism, after what they've openly and publicly said and done. They argue with emotion, no policy, no rational line of reasoning.

Like social security, ooo, it's tax they'll never get! We're being taxed to death! Wahh! Wahh! Got any actual proof or are you just going off anecdotes and what other uninformed angry people like you already are predisposed to believe? Literally, how did you come to this line of reasoning. Anything. Anything ever at all?

At some point all the arguments build up from behind the echobox and they just leave silently. Nobody is truly hard republican, they have no logical reason to be, they just hate something and want it to be something they never have to think about. Because again, they're pussy control freaks. But everyone grows up eventually, sometimes.

Eventually they'll realize the world ain't so small and they can stop pretending to know everything without having anything to show for it but devotion to an idea they could never explain to a crowd of people on a stage openly, other than a nazi rally.

Like I still haven't heard a good argument against gays or trans people. Just that they're flamboyant, gay, "unnatural" and weird. Oh no. The utter horror, life existing, and you caring about a very arbitrary aspect that has no scientific proof of anything.

Really republicans just build their entire ideology off the incomplete concepts and fan-fictions of others either paid to do so or unironically making those facebook tier memes.

Either way, holy hell it is hilarious to watch the in-fighting over Dump. 7-8 fucking years since before the elections. About. Fucking. Time.

For once I'm rooting for Dump, because it looks like he's got little chance, and he's causing in-fighting. Divide that party like the democratic party has to be having been the only rational option forever, forced to hold every ideology that isn't Hitler fascination.