#vs cis people who get to have nuance in the discussion | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

detransraichu · 2 months

Text

here's the thing. and i'll use trans speak for this. afab ppl's connection to their afab-typical bodies, with bio breasts and bio vaginas, will never be the same connection as the one transfems have with their hrt breasts and surgical vaginas.

this is a neutral statement, one isn't better than the other to me. so hold on, i just wanna explain

people who grow up without seeing people like them, who have their body type, get breasts and be oppressed for it, and who in turn grow breasts in puberty, those afab people have a relationship w their bodies that amab people simply do not have. a transfem person is excited for breasts, even a trans teen told "omg kid you get to go on hormones and grow those too someday!!" does NOT have an afab experience w breasts (or vaginas, with bottom surgery). afab feelings about their growth of breasts are complex as fuck since childhood as a thing you just cannot escape, at times excitement but also usually involves fear, fear of men, fear of this random growth that "makes you a woman" (and you've been told since a young age by society that women are bad, weaker, dumber, and have gross or usable bodies) and the fear of having seen older people with breasts be treated like garbage all around you... it can make afab puberty traumatic, while transfem hormone puberty is a celebration and seen as a miracle, beside some nervousness. same with how transfems view their surgical vaginas vs how afab people do, it's radically different. this is why transfem ppl will never truly understand afab experiences. and the reverse, of course, is true as well.

the way afab ppl's eyes view breasts is simply different. for amab people growing up breasts are exotic, unusual, something their natural puberty will not include, and they're often encouraged to fetishize and sexualize them by fellow amabs, including creepy grown amab ppl (usually, but not always, cis men) making misogynistic jokes about afab bodies to young cis boys & young transfems. transfems were in the not-afab camp, and knew they were safe from that bullshit, even if they sympathized with or even wanted to join the afab camp or were bullied for being afab-like

even if they later transition to get boobs as well, and eventually normalize their view of it, it doesn't change that breasts will always be a foreign thing on an amab body, an addition, and i say this neutrally, not to say that amab breasts are lesser. that's just a totally different relationship than the one afab women and afab ppl as a whole have (or have had) with their breasts, and their vaginas too, with unique oppression linked to periods and potential impregnation and pregnancy and all these crazy things afab bodies do that amab ppl, transfem included, will never truly understand. most transfems also haven't had bottom surgery statistically speaking, and with that comes the ability to penetrate with genital pleasure (unlike afab ppl who can only penetrate w fingers and objects, and transmasc bottom surgery afaik isn't the same) and often ability to impregnate. those are risks! risks that afab ppl grew up fearing! most transfems aren't creeps, but they have abilities to do so that afab ppl simply do not have, we should keep that in mind!

and that is why amab people being in any afab spaces where nudity is involved, even partially such as bathrooms, will always be an uncomfortable situation for many if not most afab women, and often transmasc people too, and some post-op transfemmes as well who do not have a penis anymore and relate more to afab struggles. and even if turns out everybody can coexist in the end in nudity rooms, afab worries matter! afab ppl should not be shut down the way they are right now. it should be a nuanced issue

yet instead of respectful discussions talking about compromises afab people are all told to change our conditioning, to totally ignore amab conditioning, to act like transfems are exactly and have always been exactly like afab people and there's no particular risks or power imbalance. and we're threatened w the label of bigot and being shunned and lose all our friends if we still have concerns. not even outright refusal or hatred, just worries and questions and requests!! but nope, that's being bigoted terfy bitches, or naggy theyfabs, just bc we're not accepting right away (DESPITE GENDER NEUTRAL ROOMS BEING AN OPTION AFAB PPL HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OPEN TO) that is seen as just as bad as racism and ableism and afabmisogyny, if not worse. usually worse. bc transmisogyny is always seen as WAYYY worse than the kind only afab ppl face, to the point where afab ppl don't even need to be seen as a uniquely oppressed class nor allowed to have their own boundaries. it's ridiculous

#lay text #tirf #trans #transfem #transmasc #transandrophobia #radfem #radblr

65 notes · View notes

cardentist · 7 months

Text

the problem with tma (transmisogyny affected) and tme (transmisogyny exempt) as labels is that the function they fill isn't to describe an Experience (that's what the term transmisogyny is meant to do), it's to Assign experience based on labels.

it is Assumed that that anyone who experiences transmisogyny (either At All or as the result of an identity/label) Must Be amab and Must Be transitioning into feminity in some way.

there's some nuance to that on an individual level, some people who push the tma/tme label may agree that gnc cis women are also at times affected by transmisogyny for instance. but when someone asks a nonbinary person if they are tma or tme they are asking if that nonbinary person was born with a penis or not. they're putting it in polite terms, but that is the implication.

the point of tma vs tme is Not "do you have personal experience with transmisogyny," which is a valid question when having discussions About transmisogyny. the Point of tma vs tme is "you Cannot have experiences with transmisogyny unless you were born in this particular way with these particular labels." it is Gatekeeping an experience and asking other people out themselves as being gatekept from.

and that's a Problem. both in terms of it affirming this binary, And because it is simply wrong.

it's a problem of seeming common sense, what feels the most naturally intuitive, Not being true. something that tends to be at the heart of a Lot of discourse within the queer community.

it is Not controversial to say that trans women and trans feminine people are, statistically, the group most likely to experience transmisogyny. it's right there in the name, it's a term that was coined to describe the experiences of the intersection of transphobia and misogyny that is pointed at trans women. nobody is arguing against that.

but the leap to "this was coined For trans women so it is Only experienced By trans women" just is not true.

a cis intersex woman is assigned female at birth but has traits that are outwardly read as masculine.

an intersex man is assigned male at birth but has a micropenis or secondary sex characteristics that are read as feminine (breasts, a lack of body hair, etc).

an intersex man is assigned female at birth and experiences both.

an intersex person is nonbinary, born with characteristics that people considered "wrong" and treated as such, and rejects the binary altogether.

an intersex person, regardless of gender or sex or label, embraces being openly gnc.

a gnc person who, whether they identify as cis or not, Does Not consider themselves trans. who intentionally presents outside of the conventions of their gender. who bind or wear breast forms, who practice presenting their voice as higher or lower, who wear make up and fake beards, who wear shape ware to make themselves curvier, flatter. who takes estrogen or testosterone or get bottom or top surgery. who Visibly Presents as someone who blends the masculine with the feminine.

nonbinary people not being beholden to the physical binary. who pick and choose how they want to present, both through presentation And transition. who mix and match based not on the binary but on what they Want. a nonbinary person with a beard and a vagina is not inherently afab, a nonbinary person with a dick and breasts is not inherently amab.

a trans masculine person or a trans man, in turn, is neither inherently immune to presenting femininely Or inherently afab.

an intersex person can be assigned male at birth and transition masculinely.

a multigender person or a genderfluid person can be Both a trans man And a trans woman (or nonbinary, or agender, or-).

an afab person who is a trans man can Also be gnc. can be a person with a deep voice and beard in a dress. can have a penis and breasts. can mix and match any sort of presentation.

a trans man can simply be in the process of transitioning or not be able To transition and be perceived as a masculine person with traits "too" feminine or a feminine person with traits "too" masculine.

how someone is treated is, ultimately, not about the labels that they have but how they are Perceived. labels do obviously influence perception, but they are Not the only factor In perception.

whether or not a person experiences transmisogyny is due to how the people around them perceive them and what that perception inspires that person to do.

the problem with creating a term to limit which labels can experience something is that experience does not care about labels, experiences just happen to you.

and none of this is to say that transmisogyny Isn't a tool created by and for trans women. But it Is to say that it's important to recognize when experiences across many different identities are tied to the same root cause.

all of these groups (and most likely many more that I haven't mentioned), Can experience transmisogyny because they Can be interpreted as trans women or as close enough To trans women to experience oppression or harassment for it.

but what these groups all have in common (what All groups have in common), is Gender Essentialism. that there are two sexes (or two genders), and that there are Inherently traits associated with those categories that cannot be changed.

and the Thing Is. it's not Better when it's trans inclusive. when it states people with this gender or with these traits Must have these experiences, Must be fundamentally different from people with That gender with Those traits.

it is not a Bad Thing to share. people who are different from you will share traits and experiences and this Does Not either take your experiences away or erase the fact that you two are different. trans men experiencing misogyny does not mean that trans women do not. nonbinary people experiencing misogyny is not inherently tied to their sex.

It's All Soup. people have experiences because they do and while we can make general observations about what we see we Cannot make them into hard lines without crushing people in the process.

I want to go on testosterone, I want to have a deep voice and facial hair. I want to have boobies, I want to wear dresses, I want to be Cute.

right now I am pre testerone. I shave my head bald regularly and my chest is small enough that it is often not visible through my clothes. I have a high pitched voice and no facial hair and I wear dad shorts that square my hips and button up shirts.

am I transmisogyny exempt? do people who are interpreted as butch women experience transmisogyny at times? do people who are interpreted as men in women's clothing experience transmisogyny at times? do people who mix traits that are considered masculine with those considered feminine experience transmisogyny at times?

if a gnc trans woman spoke about experiences she's had where she was interpreted as a trans man or as a cis gay man I would not reject those experiences because they aren't the "right" ones. what we have in common does not invalidate our existence as ourselves. our experiences, the ways that other people treat us, do not invalidate our existence as ourselves.

the ways that other people interpret, that other people treat us, do not define our labels our labels do not define those things in turn.

#discourse #transphobia #transmisogyny #gender essentialism #transunity #trans unity #long post

28 notes · View notes

garden-ing-gnostic · 3 days

Text

[Text in screenshot:] Also like someone else stated before, radqueer is supportive of and always has been supportive of all contact stances - this is said in the coining post. So yes, no matter how your personal view on this is, radqueer - the label, the whole community - is BY DEFINITION in support of pro-contact stances. of ALL contact stances. radqueer inherently believes children and animals can consent. stop trying to seem like The Good Radqueer, you all suck, some just more than others. [End screenshot]

This is why the rq debate is so stupid to me. Its literally so clear that anti (transid,para,rq)s dgaf about whatever intricacies that you make up about "valid" vs "invalid"– and they hate us all no matter what. Rqsburnforever5000 doesn't gaf about thr intricacies of consent, he just wants all (trans/cis)harmfuls gone. Killall-radicalqueers doesn't gaf about how the community looks from the outside, she's just amused by how rqs arent serious about their beliefs, how they actually secretly agree with her, how they even talk like her! Get your head out your ass and look around, antis won't be moved by how you fight against the "greater evil", they're more fixated on the "evil" in general, the evil that is you and I.

So, that being said, can we all agree to stop dunking on people with "bad" identities now? Can we accept that cisharmfuls and pro-cs and whatever are actually our allies? Can we get our shit together and unite against the most important enemy? At the very least, can we have nuanced conversations and learn to prioritize? Can we be more aware of how we speak and how that contributes to oppression, can we learn to discuss and be disgusted without being counter-productive? Hello? Can we????

(I'm aware the op is abt both trans/cis harm id's AND proabuse-queers, however, this is still a dunk on pro-cs and other things seen as "clearly harmful" by antis. And regardless, the last few lines make it clear that the topic doesnt matter to the poster, just that its us and therefore its bad.)

(And before you start yapping abt how something something rq community is this, or, something something these people are bad that, just know idgaf. You can discuss whatever nuances you feel about [insert group] without repeating what bigots say about us. It's not cowardice or being pro abuse to have a little self awareness. The only cowards here are those who are too afraid to think before they speak.)

#🌱 jade posting #rqc 🍓🌈#Tbh I kinda have fun lecturing you fools... I'm so smart you guys so you all have to hear it. Now!!!#You all owe me money for constantly talking about discourse. I just never get tired because I'm so sexy.#Man I'm hungry you guys. So hungry I could eat like idk twilight sparkle...#Cw discourse #🌱 jade drama #Discourse cw #Tw discourse #discourse

10 notes · View notes

animentality · 1 year

Note

I was going to unfollow after disagreeing with your opinions on Steven Universe

But your philosophical discussion on how mpreg and omegaverse are the collage girls and milfs of fandom?

That's content I just can't turn down.

Listen, I was around for when mpreg was hot.

Everyone used it as an example of how deranged the internet was. Now omegaverse is the new thing, and people don't really use mpreg anymore.

And you see way less negative reactions to omegaverse vs mpreg. Possibly because mpreg was this infamous creature of the early 2000s, which lurked on fanfiction dot net and other fan sites, this taboo little beast that people only brought up to laugh at.

But omegaverse is classier. It's evolved and matured.

It's no longer the screaming spring break college girl, but the older and wiser mommy who knows what she wants and isn't ashamed of it anymore.

She's a CEO in a sharp pants suit and 6 inch heels and glasses and a scarf that costs 40,000 usd.

I also propose the idea that omegaverse is more trans inclusive than mpreg, because it has a more nuanced understanding of how gender operates in this fanfictional word.

Back in the old days, mpreg was like...men shit babies out their asses.

Not many people really knew what else they could do.

They still wanted the gay sex but didn't understand exactly what they were craving.

I have always felt that "yaoi" and "bl" and m x m pairings all arose from this longing for connection.

See, in the 2000s, whether you watched Naruto or supernatural, you just noticed how female characters were just these... non people.

They were love interests. They were sexy and didn't do much, except get killed off for drama, or they were dutiful lovers, waiting for the main character to finish the plot.

Women gravitated towards gay pairings because first off, many of them are attracted to men, so two guys getting it on had this irresistible sexual draw for them. But also, these two male characters just had this genuine feeling of affection for each other.

They were well written and nuanced and had genuine connections. Women responded to that.

Where there was no compelling canon het relationship, women decided there would be a compelling, almost canon homo relationship.

So that's where boy x boy found a home.

In the hearts of women who wanted romance outside of romance novels, but didn't get compelling heterosexual ones in other media.

But mpreg was a weirder thing, where perhaps you want to impregnate this character...but he's male.

But you don't know how to do that exactly. So you go to this fictional thing...where men shit babies.

But omegaverse is better.

Omegaverse will do you one better.

It'll propose that we can acknowledge...that women can have dicks. Men can have vaginas.

Men and women can have both.

Omegaverse like...transitioned from mpreg!!!

It became gender fluid and gender inclusive.

I have always felt also that saying yaoi is just a straight woman's plaything to be wildly shallow and dismissive.

You know how many nonbinary and trans people who are afab realized they were not women through yaoi???

A thousand million trillion hundred.

Omegaverse is cool to me, ok.

Mpreg was alright, but it was sort of strange just so far as, you don't need to recreate a whole organ when you can just say, yeah. He's a man and he has a vagina.

So what.

Maybe he still has a dick. Maybe he doesn't.

But that's the beautiful thing.

He doesn't need either. He can have both.

A female character can have a big old dick too.

Gender is just...it doesn't matter.

You can prefer anal sex between two characters with penises, or you can prefer vaginal sex between a trans character and a cis one.

You can have two penises, if you want. Three. Four.

Spiked penises.

Doesn't matter.

Omegaverse to me was just like...the next step in fandom evolution.

It brought with it a whole other gendered system that I find interesting.

And fascinating from an anthropological standpoint.

I am pro omegaverse.

Not necessarily what I wank to, but...I like it better than mpreg.

I think it took the best of mpreg and tossed out the problematic side of it.

I think...the kids are alright.

And the girlies are wellfed.

Also on the Steven universe thing...I fully admit, my brain was sort intoxicated by a lily orchard video and another video by some guy.

I've been re watching it and I think I was too harsh.

In retrospect, I still think the pink diamond reveal wasn't well thought out and was an easy cop out...but I still like the series in general.

The music and the visuals and the world itself are fun. It also did way more for gay rep than its haters will admit.

So I admit my brain was seeped in toxic fumes.

But anyway.

Omegaverse.

Good thing.

Classier.

#omegaverse #lgbt #hmmm #mpreg

57 notes · View notes

anonil88 · 2 years

Text

Radfems and actual transphobic trans med "feminist" saying stuff like calling Hunter a man, mister, etc. And also saying how they are happy the infighting is happening and we can destroy eachother, while there are nonbinary white folks, some who don't ID as trans nonbinary, using their own trans card/proximity for those who do not ID to go on Twitter to call Hunter a tr@nny, other slurs, truscum, and trying to dox her address without realizing that could directly cause physical harm due to the first and those like them also watching this all go down.

Nobody wants to actually have a discussion about the harmful parts of the post that wasn't Hunter's nor talk about the valid points of critique many nonbinary and binary trans femmes especially black ones have stated many a time. Especially not without name calling or thinking maybe these discussions shouldn't be held in a space all around where cis people are waiting to pull and nit pick inside of a conversation they aren't a part of.

And at the same time the account is mass reported and deleted of a black trans woman who has talked about this "nonbinary vs binary vs transsexual vs terms within the trans community" extensively in an inclusive way that doesn't step on anyone's toes, invalidate anyone's experience (like the piggy whatever post) and is nuanced. She got mass reported cause a gaggle of white gay people got upset she told a cis white bi woman that their straight cis boyfriend can't just claim to be queer for being with her.

The discourse on the internet just rotates and repeats and rotates and repeats. When are we going to get to a point where we go we all have different lived experiences and some of the things we say on the internet has little intersection with the actual queer community offline. But also that they discourse can often miss a lot of points and multiple things can be right and wrong at the same time.

It's annoying and I get why so many older queer people just ignore it all and live their lives best and only interject from time to time. That whole lesbians can't be trans masc bullshit took a few months off my patience building I swear. Nothing like scrolling for silly goofy videos and getting slammed with all masc people can't date lesbians and proximity to men. Rmfe go outside or put on a stupid comedy please.

#stop the violence #hunter schafer #discourse #my thoughts #rad fems do not touch or else i will hack your macbook

6 notes · View notes

crackinwise · 1 year

Text

Hmmm. This is a timely story to tell (and a better written show should tell it, with input from girls/women & trans kids in sports also), but it's like they made what are serious issues into trivial, almost satire moments. Compared to how original Quantum Leap handled its stories of racism, homophobia, ableism, etc., it seems so Twitter-level shallow. (Altho they did fuck up their actual Women's Lib episode severely back then.)

Making the only girl on the basketball team that's slightly irked by a trans teammate be a white girl who's just bitter she's not as good and really being pushed by her stereotypical "Karen" mom, rubbed me the wrong way. Like, instead of delving into real worries, misconceptions and nuance that can be discussed, the ep only presents the problem as Evil Cis Women: The Meme. Again and again it was women in the wrong and men being progressive here. Whitewashing the main threat that men in positions of power and men killing trans women of color on the streets are to trans rights & safety.

For example: having the principle, who's a Black woman, be a hardass antagonist and use "ain't nobody got time for that"; the "mY mOm ThE FeMiNiSt" line just for stating the fact women have facial hair; the mom being the wrong one for protecting her daughter while Ben as the dad is the hero fighting for her visibility; Addison feeling guilty she personally didn't somehow save trans soldiers from a ban as if women in the military don't face their own problems of being routinely raped by fellow soldiers and officers; and having the "Karen" caricature be the one to mention women's Title IX fight as if we're supposed to find something wrong with that achievement. It all sounded so Derogatory. How do you lift trans kids by slapping down other women? The writers then seemed to keep writing angry outbursts for the trans girl, which... They know that's not a helpful image, right? Whose side are they playing on?

In the end, the cause is won because a Black teammate told the "Karen" all the girls would end up getting blood tests and body exams by the school if she didn't back down, referencing Black women mistreated in sports, both intersex and not. So...how is that a fix for anything when it's just using scare tactics at the expense of misogynoir to shut the Evil Woman up? "Haha they do it to Black women all the time," and that's just shrugged off?!? This whole thing about trans kids in sex segregated sports gets summed up as a 'weird women adults vs wise kids' issue as if irl girls in sports don't have their own questions and opinions that people keep talking over on both sides. It feels like this episode tried to say something but then stomped on its own foot.

#quantum leap 2022 #quantum leap spoilers #reviews no one asked for #misogyny #what's the purpose of pointing to women as the boogeymen to distract from violent men? hello?

1 note · View note

coolanthroproject · 2 years

Text

Not So Serious Discourse Online

Oddly enough, the subreddits I have found that have the most “authentic” (by this I mean without too much trolling/hate/and also posts focued on LGBTQ+ people talking to each other vs. educating others) is on a circlejerk subreddit. guage” to discuss things only trans people would understand or find funny. Circlejerk subreddits are a niche group of subreddits that involve users discussing things “ironically” or sarcastically. It is actually insanely clever what circlejerk subreddits have done. They provide an internet subculture so niche that trolls cannot infiltrate it. They would not understand how to with the lack of context and the general playful nature of it all. If someone did try to troll, it would most likely be seen as a legitimate post on the subreddit. r/Transgendercirclejerk is even more genius. It takes serious trans issues and discusses them through an ironic lens. People are able to jokingly discuss trans issues, and I have observed several reasons why it works so well.

This subreddit uses its own “lan They were made originally to poke fun at gatekeepers who praise themselves for liking ot being something niche. /uj means “unjerk”. When someone uses this, it means they are ceasing with their fake sarcastic persona and are trying to be serious./rj means “rejerk” which means the poster/commenter is resuming the persona.

The humor is so niche, only transgender individuals (or those who are very very close to the trans community) find it funny. It’s in a dark humor sort of way without being too edgy. People poke fun at themselves. It is implied everything is in good humor.

Users can vent about life without it getting old. A lot of posts are vent posts in disguise (take this for example). It lets users vent their own personal traumas or just general issues with the world without feeling guilty for discussing them and also allowing themselves to use humor as a coping mechanism.

To me, it’s very clear this subreddit is able to have good, thorough discussions with nuance since it has been able to cultivate its own userbase and form their own “culture” in a way. In my opinion, this is one of the most authentic subreddits to really see some transgender discourse. I think this is a lot different from most serious subreddits as they really struggle with being too heavy or too diverse (by this I mean with trolls, cis people,etc.). This subreddit is a major safespace, even if it is not intended to be. Therefore, people can talk more freely. Also, it seems like r/Transgendercirclejerk is more active. Users tend to interact more with each other there than in r/asktransgender.

Here are some good posts that I think represent the subreddit well. (and they are pretty funny or make you kinda think, I also suggest reading the comments)

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgendercirclejerk/comments/uiq5kg/i_have_a_persecutor_black_alter_that_wont_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgendercirclejerk/comments/nbab3t/proof_trans_women_are_predators/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgendercirclejerk/comments/t5k26g/hi_im_a_tra/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgendercirclejerk/comments/ptw2bn/i_see_alot_of_people_bitching_about_neopronouns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgendercirclejerk/comments/sj0bp8/a_trans_woman_walks_into_a_bar/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

0 notes

cock-holliday · 2 years

Text

There have been a bunch of posts on a variety of interconnected topics that have been frustrating me, but the discussion around it is too long that I kept refraining from typing out a response. They all mainly pertain to how hierarchies of oppression, binary thinking, and knee-jerk responses have been damaging to discourse that is significantly more nuanced than people want to believe. The main topics are the discourse around “transandrophobia,” the reductive nature of waves of feminism that are based around man-hating, the separation of more vs less oppressed trans people that leaves out intersex folks, how context of conversations is crucial, and that the need to have an “opposite” to an oppressed group doesn’t necessarily translate to an oppressor.

Obviously, obviously, obviously, transmasculine folks are not exempt from perpetuating transmisogyny. Maleness in some contexts is rewarded. Women who have a fear of men or a hatred from their experiences with misogyny are valid and their emotions on the topic are also valid. The framing of these topics as two opposing sides and that if you raise issues for one side you must be invalidating the other is incredibly damaging.

Transandrophobia

What an incredibly charged topic. On the one hand, some transmascs have not unpacked their internalized misogyny. I’ve seen trans men try to outperform toxic masculinity to fit in. Sometimes trans men are some of the worst perpetrators of interpersonal transmisogyny. It’s definitely something that happens, and acknowledging the context of the conversation around where the term came from doesn’t negate that.

Initially the term was “transmisandry” but people agreed that misandry DID come off as very “men’s rights activist” and distracted from the topic. Transandrophobia perhaps isn’t a better term, as people have pointed out that androphobia is the fear of men–typically in trauma contexts. The word was coined by an individual younger than I am, fewer than 10 years ago. Regardless of whether the word is the RIGHT word, I want to get into the REASON for the word.

“The word you’re looking for is transphobia”

Well, yes and no. Nonbinary people fit under a transgender umbrella, but not all trans people are nonbinary. Genderqueer people fit under a nonbinary umbrella but not all nonbinary people are genderqueer. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. The origin for the term was to label the very specific way in which transmasculine people are *systemically* as well as interpersonally oppressed in ways that transfeminine people are not. It was never to suggest that it was “worse” than what transfeminine people deal with. The term transmisogyny was coined to address the intersection of transphobia and misogyny. The term “intersectionality” only entered the discourse in 1989 when Kimberlé Crenshaw coined it. The term “transmisogyny” was coined by Julie Serano in her book “Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity” in 2007. These terms are new and evolving, though the topics have been debated for much longer than there were words to discuss them.

Likewise, many transmasculine folks felt that there needed to be a word to describe the specific ways that transmasculine folks are targeted. It isn’t simply transphobia because it’s more narrow than that. It’s the intersection of transphobia and…something. Is it masculinity? Is it maleness? Is it something else?

All trans folks face deadnaming, misgendering, anti-trans violence. Transfeminine people have hypervisibility. Transmasculine people have invisibility. Both transfeminine people and transmasculine people face state and interpersonal violence, but typically–statistically, transfeminine people are at significantly higher risk of both, particularly interpersonal. Both face higher rates of relationship abuse than cis lesbian and gay counterparts, both face sexual and physical violence off the charts in the prison system. But there are things that affect transmasculine folks more than transfeminine people, and discussing it is not being exclusive, it is simply talking about a specific form of oppression.

One of the biggest places of systemic oppression of transmasculine people is reproductive issues. Both transmasculine people and transfeminine people face risk of sterilization, but pregnancy discussions/politics typically impacts transmasculine folks more than transfeminine folks. At best, transmasculine people are seen as “allies” in reproductive struggles rather than in the exact same camp as cis women. Transmasculine folks are denied access to reproductive care, are given little tools and help when it comes to pregnancy, birth control, and abortion. Transmasculine folks, generally men, or those with M on their medical records are often denied insurance coverage of procedures “for women,” are routinely abused and discriminated against in gynecological offices, reproductive healthcare centers, and are denied agency over their own bodies. And yet, whenever it gets brought up, there are accusations that it’s talking over trans women to raise these concerns. It could be! If I weaponize my oppression against others, then sure. If I hop on a discussion about trans women and say I have it worse, of course I’m derailing and talking over, but why is it not seen as transmasculine folks being talked over when they raise a concern and are invalidated? Complaining about my broken arm isn’t silencing people with a broken leg or suggesting I have it worse (unless of course I *do* try to insist it’s worse). It’s not worse, it’s different. And speaking on what’s different isn’t derailing, talking over, etc it’s expanding the conversation.

Incels and MRAs

Again, transmasculine people can be and often are guilty of transmisogyny, and can and do hide behind their status as trans to shield from accountability. The existence of one extreme does not negate the other extreme. This section is regarding the framing of masculinity and maleness as inherently bad, oppressive, and by extension, assuming that discussing any of the backlash men/masculine folks are faced with must be an endorsement of misogyny. It’s not “opposite” it’s different.

“Men Are Allowed To Be Masculine”

This is a post that was going around that got a ton of backlash. It makes sense why, when you only apply it through a lens of the most privileged men saying it. The post got insistence that it was only being circulated among toxicly masculine folks and was akin to tradfem ideology. In some cases, I’m sure that’s correct! But that wasn’t the only or even main circle that line came from.

It was circulated in groups discussing the way the masculinity of men of color is viewed as predatory. A Black man is not rewarded for masculinity the same way a white man is. Femininity is looked down on no matter who is performing it, but masculinity is not always rewarded. It certainly is in some contexts, in others it is demonized. Trans men who are too masculine to be seen as “girls lite” in “progressive” queer circles are now seen as predatory. Oppressed men speaking up about their oppression are repeatedly silenced by white cis women wielding a victim status. If femininity is inherently oppressed and masculinity is inherently rewarded always, white women would not be able to accuse Black men of crimes and be instantly believed over the Black men like they are. It’s more complicated than feminine/woman=good, pure, innocent, and masculine/men=bad, aggressive. Women are punished for masculinity, and women of color demonized for it. Even women of color who perform femininity in the “wrong” way are seen as bad, aggressive, hostile, etc.

A white cishet able-bodied man saying “let men be masculine” is different from a trans man speaking up about being seen as invasive in queer spaces for his masculinity vs a Black man seen as a predator for his masculinity vs a man whose cultural performance of masculinity is being fed through the lens of white western masculinity.

“Hating Men Leads To Homophobia And Transphobia”

This post faced a lot of backlash. In some spaces, women who are survivors of violence from men did not take kindly to this post. I do not blame people lashing out from trauma, and I do not have hate towards people whose trauma makes nuance difficult. This is understandable. The conversation, however, needs to move forward in as many spaces as possible. Hating men DOES lead to homophobia. Queer male positivity posts are often derailed by women, and it’s a problem. Is it worse than homophobia directed at women by men? No, it’s just different. One of the most popular takes on bisexualiy was “I’m attracted to all women and one man” or “I’m bi and have a boyfriend and that sucks, I wish I had a girlfriend.” Homophobia and biphobia treat men as a disgusting option. Men and masculinity are bad or oppressive, so men loving men are only going to just be doubly misogynistic, and why would you, a bisexual woman, date a gross man when you could date a woman? People do not need to like men, they do not need to date men, they do not need to even undo suspicion of men, but attacking men for their maleness isn’t inherently “progressive” just because rejecting misogyny is the right path.

As far as transphobia goes, of course the same “men are gross, bad, predators” views impact trans men, but it also impacts trans women. A lot of radfem circles that run buckwild with “men bad” also connect having a penis to manhood. Hell, a common euphemism for penis IS “manhood.” A lot of “feminist” writing since the 60s equates a penis with oppression, aggression, rape, and “conquering.” Just as positivity about the vagina is not a bad thing, (destigmatising the vagina, and deconstructing repulsion and revulsion toward this set of genitalia) demonizing a penis, the seeming “opposite” does not equal a progressive view. Whether people want to discuss it or not, “men bad” can very quickly lead to bioessentialism, which hurts everyone. So while female/femininity positivity posts are good, the “opposite” is not always bad, especially when discussing the intersections of masculinity/maleness with other identities of oppression. Conversations of sex and gender cannot be fed through the same lens that we use for race. “Black Power” vs “White Power” for example have obvious historical contexts where one is explicitly about liberation while the opposite is explicitly about being oppressors. Of course, discussions of race has nuance as well, but that’s a whole post on its own.

TMA vs TME

This discourse is not necessarily new, but the last 3 years has seen a peculiar shift. It now seems to be commonplace among younger trans folks to label whether you are transmisogyny “applicable” or “exempt.” This is absolutely gobsmacking to me, but it falls in line with all other issues of binary thinking, the need to have a good vs bad side of oppression, and the overarching big glaring issue that even I have not said yet in this post: ALL OF THIS DISCOURSE COMPLETLY LEAVES OUT INTERSEX PEOPLE!

There are people assigned female at birth who have testes, there are people assigned male at birth with a uterus. AFAB and AMAB are not as useful in discourse as we want to think (once again, we love neat little boxes, even among groups fighting for liberation). There are AMAB folks who are transmasculine, there are AFAB folks who are transfeminine. There are trans people who are neither transfeminine nor transmasculine. There are people who have been both. There are people who fluctuate.

TME discourse often reminds of slur reclamation discourse. “You can’t call yourself a dyke if you’re bi” except people have historically done just that, “you can’t use dyke if you’re a man” except folks have historically done that. “Lemme just tell the guy who harassed me on the street he is not allowed to call me a dyke, I’m actually a trans man. I’m exempt from misogyny because I’m a guy.”

I know many folks want to come to spaces humble and want to show their support for trans women and are afraid of looking like *checks notes* “incels, men’s rights activists, etc.” I don’t think people using TME are bad for it, the opposite, I think it comes from a place of trying to show support and solidarity.

Solidarity and Mutual Aid

Which brings me to my final point. Both the terms “solidarity” and “mutual aid” have practically been rendered meaningless in online spaces. Solidarity means MUTUAL support between groups. When someone yells out about solidarity, it is not just simply support for that group, it is the recognition that our struggles are interconnected and mutual respect is crucial for liberation. Mutual aid means when groups build a relationship and can inter-depend on each other. Asking for a one time collection of funds is a donation, it is not mutual aid. Mutual aid is mutual. It is not *transactional* in a “I support you, you turn around and support me” but rather the belief that an injury to you is an injury to me, your success is my success, and so you can lean on me and I will lean on you and we will support each other.

Watering down and refusing to get into the weeds of what discourse is is so so damaging. The “opposite” of an oppressed group is not inherently “the oppressor” or enemy. There was major discourse 10-15 years ago about whether men should call themselves “feminist” or “feminist ally” because we pretended the struggles of women are not also connected to the struggles of men. That injuries to women do not impact men because they are opposites. Women being punished for womanhood does not mean men are always rewarded for being men, punishment for being feminine does not mean that masculinity is always rewarded. Sometimes, the opposite happens. Speaking on the issues one group faces doesn't always mean it is silencing another group. It CAN, and it DOES happen, but binary views of these issues allow oppressions of more nuance to go unchecked.

We HAVE to go into deep dives, and cannot rely on single sentence clapbacks and meme reduction of issues to grasp that there are nuances to these issues that are going ignored.

Solidarity means solidarity to all oppressed people. Your pain is my pain, your triumphs are my triumphs, we are not free until we are all free.

#transphobia #transmisogyny #transandrophobia #trans discourse #transgender discourse

241 notes · View notes

anamatics · 3 years

Note

Your opinion on old fandom forums vs, fandom today?

I didn't answer this one last night as I wanted to be able to type out a proper response, and one that's partly adapted from an essay I wrote back in 2016.

As a fandom old, I’ve spent a long time in fandom spaces. I did my time with writing slash and het ships, but I always loved writing stories for me about people like me. I have witnessed first-hand the rise and fall of listservs and live journal as places where people who liked femslash gathered to discuss their favorite shows. I know a lot of fandom history. When I comment on the events in fandom, it still comes from my position as a fan, not as a creative. I want to preface all of these thoughts with this.

Fandom used to be something that you didn't talk about. It was secret, never mentioned in public, zines and stories mailed back and forth across the country. The internet changed that, people's attitudes toward things like queer and trans identity changed that, people's want to see diversity on their screens changed that. Yet, at the same time, there is a whole new generation of young queer creatives emerging onto the writing scene who have grown up witnessing the rise and fall of these great, monolithic fandoms that exist beyond the space of shows themselves. More and more, networks, writers, and producers are paying attention to what the fandom says and to what they react to.

This is why I don't really like fandom these days, because I've seen both sides. I struggled with this working on Carmilla as someone who had been, and in may ways still was, a fan. I know fans have power, I've done things because I know fans have power. And yet, I felt like I'd lost my place in a community - in old fandom - because of this realization. And I myself asking questions about my place in new fandom. Questions that, most of the time, had no answers.

Is it valid to be both grateful for the acknowledgement of fan desires within the creative side of television and web writing and a little horrified by the amount of entitlement that any capitulation by those productions seems to engender within fans? Am I valid in feeling trapped by this feeling of wanting to be the best possible arbiter of representation and knowing that I can never be perfect because the perfection demanded by the queer community isn’t achievable? Does my voice even matter in fandom circles anymore because I’ve “crossed over” to the other side? Am I allowed to continue to speak critically about representation in shows that are not my own because I haven’t “fixed mine yet”?

I struggled with this when Carmilla was airing. I still struggle with it now, too, because I see how trolls on Twitter and Tumblr have reacted to folks like me speaking out about problems we see in our communities or within fandom. People like me aren’t allowed to criticize fandom, or fandom culture, because we’re no longer seen as truly a part of it: by being creators who can’t always live up to fandom’s sometimes unreasonable standards, we’re now considered just part of the problem. We can’t critique behaviors and call things out within this fandom community that should also represent us because when we do we’re hurting the fandom community.

Every queer creative out there has shouldered some of this hurt, I know I have. I stand by what I’ve said despite the backlash. If you cannot believe in the truth you speak, what good are you to a community looking to you for change?

Those who speak to the internal problems of fandom culture are shouted down. People with years of fandom experience, who are far more knowledgeable of the history of fandom (and especially the femslash corners of it) and presence in media than the present-day narrative setters, are shouted down and told that we are part of the problem. Creatives who speak out and criticize other works are treated equally poorly. The problem is that in refusing to look at the problems within our fandom spaces, and saying that everyone outside the group is to blame for the problems of poor representation, we are sticking our fingers in our ears and refusing to look at what’s wrong with us. We eat our own.

The queer community – and by extension the queer fandom community – functions like an ouroboros as far as I can tell. That’s the snake from Norse mythology that eats its tail, representing infinity but also representing the inevitable crush of our own bullshit as it comes down around us with the hopes of becoming a better community. There should be a place within this community for everyone, and yet it’s this same space that is preoccupied with gatekeeping characterized by constant infighting, identity policing, and silencing or invalidating opinions that don’t perfectly align with this vision of what is considered acceptable in the eyes of the thinking of the day.

Queerness is messy. There’s a lot of nuance to it. And there will always be people who want their own community within that umbrella of queerness. That’s a valid want. You want to be around people who are homogenous, because it’s when variety is introduced that feelings get hurt. But the existence of a community for marginalized people should not come at the detriment and degradation of other vulnerable people, nor should it come at the expanse of dismissing intersectionality within our community.

But instead, we eat our own. We dismiss trans headcanons like people in old fandom used to dismiss queer headcanons. We're doing the same bullshit, just rinsed and repeated, directed at a new set of people whose voices are smaller than the small specks of power new fandom has granted (cis, white) queer people.

We fight ourselves amongst because we feel as though we cannot fight the forces of our own oppression. We censor ourselves to make sure that we don’t say anything to upend the proverbial apple cart. We do this not because we’re afraid of the problematic elements outside of the community that could come into our community, but rather because we’re afraid of those within our own community who have the power to kick us out from under our own umbrella and back into the rain.

So when I think about fandom these days, I imagine this moment of losing community. I imagine the hurtful message sent, the dismissive post on the forum, the hateful tweet, actions that cost nothing when they are directed at creators, fan writers, fan artists. These people exist to create content that is to be consumed. They aren't human. They aren't even real. They're just the producers of content that fandom sucks up like a vacuum cleaner without bothering to engage with the creators except to demand more or demand better. Nothing makes you feel alienated from your community like realizing you only exist to produce for it and when you don't produce to standards, you are attacked.

What's worse is that a lot of folks in fandom don't even think about this these days. There's no risk in blasting off a message or a tweet. But social media is an echo chamber. It’s a hive mind, and it’s a place where people can get hurt, very badly, and very quickly. Social media should not be used as a weapon to badger the people trying to get into positions where they can create change, which is what I feel new fandom has done. But at the same time, new fandom has also become a space where voices can be uplifted, where people can be seen and heard who maybe weren't before.

So TL;DR, I think social media ruined fandom, I have a lot of baggage/trauma from working on a show as fandom was transitioning from old fandom to new fandom, and like... we have to be better to each other.

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #writing #fandom #some commentary that I'll probably delete

321 notes · View notes

prettyboykatsuki · 3 years

Note

Aristotle, this was an older take you mentioned on your blog that I literally completely forgot to ask you about, but I just remembered as I was looking for the ask so here goes: I’d love to hear more about how you link queerness with disagreeing with common fanon characterizations/not being into hard mean dom characterizations because I am queer and fall in the camp of disagreeing with a lot of them and I’d love to hear your thoughts. I’m sorry if this comes off as creepy or out of nowhere, I swear that wasn’t my intention asdfghjkl

i could honest to god write a thesis on this like i think about it so much with a lot of examples in peoples im mutuals with (btw mutuals i may adress u in here if u want me to take u out pls let me know)

cw for fetishization, gender stereotypes, and general discussions of toxic masculinity / gender roles

this is super long because the subject is really nuanced and i could probably go on and on about it. please ask me abt it dsjhfkds

disclaimer! write characters however. this is me just observing stuff. no worries.

in my experience on tumblr and in the general fanfiction writing community - there is a very, very big difference in how specific types of people, specifically queer / openly queer people, interact with characters and characterization on this app. i dont think most people even really notice or know that it happens but it's something i've observed over time.

one of my biggest gripes with fandom and particularly the self-insert community, is how people tend to characterize male characters by divying them up into these two boxes of submissive and dominant.

being brutally honest - i think a lot of the characterizations of many male characters have largely to do with how many of the people in the self-insert community are femme presenting cis women.

and that presentation and gender identity + in addition to sexuality have a lot to do with how men are written in this app. in a way, it's almost a given because if you don't fall into being a cis, femme presenting women, your relationship to things like gender and what role you play in relationships is very very different.

i find this mostly to be in how things how certain characters are written as inherently more submissive vs how certain characters are written as inherently more dominant. i'll use baku but there are several characters i find this to be true.

tanjiro, yuuji, hinata vs inosuke, megumi, and kageyama.

bakugou is a character i get a lot of.. commentary on when i write him to be a submissive person in the relationship and this rlly only happens when i write him in the context of reader-insert. people will openly disagree with the characterization of bakugou that is clingy, submissive, and needy especially when i write it with fem!self-insert

but he's not the only character. any male character that aren't extremely emotional or upbeat get a degree of this treatment. kageyama, sasuke, megumi - i could go on and on.

and i think there in lies the inherent link between how queerness effects your role in a relationship and how that impacts how you see male characters and in what way you see them. how much vulnerability you're willing to write in for them etc.

when you're a queer person - you are very comfortable with the idea that a man can be a vulnerable and submissive kind of person in a relationship because you, yourself, do not have a lot of orthodoxy in your relationships. and your "level" of queerness is especially important because well, if you're a femme presenting bisexual woman who has only ever dated cis men, you've probably got a rather set role in how you perceive men and male characters.

you're probably more likely than a cishet femme woman to be okay with vulnerable and submissive male characters, but it's unlikely that you stray too far from dominant men.

where on the other hand, if you're a masculine cis woman, or a trans man, or a femme presenting lesbian or a masc nonbinary person or really anyone that is openly and outwardly queer - your views of how men can be and how men are a lot more broad almost inherently.

because you yourself do not fit an orthodoxy in relationships. you yourself cannot afford being part of any heteronormativity so your perception of a character is completely.

there's a lot to it - like how people are also comfortable writing someone like deku as submissive but someone like bakugou as dominant.

is it bc maybe you perceive anger and stoicism as dominant masculine traits and you perceive emotion and vulnerability to submissive feminine traits?

just some food for thought about how fandom sometimes accidentally perpetuates heteronormativity.

#return to sender #characterization tag #i have a lot of thoughts about this #and how fandom kind of tends to push a lot of inherently heteronormative perceptions of characters #that in turn make characterization more and more.. lackluster ig #i have a lot of specific mutuals i would love to come discuss this with me #particularly saint and riley since they are part of the openly queer mutuals gang for me #but yeah its a lot lmfao i think about it A Lot

170 notes · View notes

happysadyoyo · 2 years

Note

On eggs, I wonder if it ties back at all the a 'crack the egg vs no let them hatch themselves' kind of dichotomy. My local trans community doesn't have any rules about it but certainly all the local leaders will quietly tell you not to crack eggs and let them discover that they're trans themselves. And I've noticed that it anecdotally seems to lead to more nuanced thought on queer things. While I've seen so many people online talk about how excited they are to crack an egg. But like....what about the trans person you're cracking open? Is anyone gonna do some triage on that painful plop into a new type of marginalization? They cracked the egg so...?

I don't think these people who talk about egg cracking like this really care.

OP of the entire post over on reddit told me they just wanted to have a discussion on how gender roles can hurt people, but to title something "Does this give egg vibes to anyone else"

and to include a quote about Whedon hiding under feminism to cheat on his wife?

It feels weird.

I cracked one egg, an ex, and while I wasn't the best partner (a lot was going on there), the cracking was more from her being around me and being suddenly inundated with queer shit than me actively prying the egg open. She went from thinking she was cis, to nonbinary, and now she's safe in a queer polycule as a woman. I'm very proud of her for finding herself and getting a job that lines up more with her interests. She's safe, near people she loves, and she's finally able to be true to herself.

Now, after we move, we really need to set up nights for them to introduce me OK KO finally since she and Brier are obsessed and I'm just here lol.

2 notes · View notes

silvermoon424 · 3 years

Note

There's a complicated discussion one could have with liking something of genuine quality or at least of great significance in terms of pop culture influence only to find the creator hasn't exactly been a good noodle (putting it mildly here). There's how the art itself often contradicts a lot of the creator's believes in a sort of "The Art Vs. The Artist" kind of way, leading to how we never saw their bad side coming. To say nothing of how the work came out before we were more politically aware.

2/ But dead GOD ABOVE, so many stans and rabid fans poison the well and get the other side to respond radically in turn. Doesn't help that it legit has a knock-on effect on real life politics trying to all but nuke anybody not cis, white or heterosexual off the face of the Earth.

Oh, for sure! It's such a nuanced, complicated discussion. Like, it's one thing if a creator is outed as a bigot or is a part of some controversy and their property itself contains a lot questionable content, but in most cases of this happening it seems like the property itself is fine (maybe there are some problematic elements if you really dig into it, but honestly I think most works can be accused of that because we all have internalized biases as a result of living in an imperfect society. In other words, nobody's perfect).

I strongly believe that people are allowed to enjoy what they want, even if it turns out the creator is shitty. I know there's a lot of discussion about whether it's immoral to keep paying a creator after controversy but that's where piracy comes in. Or you can just not engage with the newer stuff and just revisit older content you already purchased (after all, it's not like you can un-buy something unless you bought it very recently and the vendor has a return policy).Life is hard enough, I'm not going to hate on someone who still loves Harry Potter but acknowledges that J.K. Rowling is a TERF.

Likewise, I'm not going to judge people who continue to enjoy FNAF. I didn't say this before, but I was obsessed with FNAF when it first came out and remained a casual fan so the Scott Cawthon stuff struck a pretty deep chord with me. I know a lot of Scott's fans are doubling down and refusing to see why people are angry, but there are also a lot of people who are struggling with their desire to hold onto something precious to them and acknowledging that the person who made it has harmful beliefs.

#long post

3 notes · View notes

drake-the-incubus · 3 years

Text

What’s Bad for You is Good for Me

Or otherwise called, conflicting needs in representation. Which is most certainly a thing.

Sometimes we have specific needs ton representation that isn’t met due to certain circumstances. Recently I posted something about how Lazy Eyes are portrayed as inherently ableist, despite the fact I grew up with it being incredibly disabling and being treated poorly for having one, and in a discussion with other people, have been told they feel the same way.

Today, I saw a post about how someone being transphobic, complained about how trans characters gave him dysphoria. While he was incredibly transphobic about him, I realized that there’s intersectionality on representation no one really talks about.

We don’t talk about how it’s weird to define representation as good and bad depending on how stereotyped it looks. We just sort of do it.

Like, for example, a flamboyantly gay, gender-nonconforming man who is very open about his sexuality and might even be sexual. This is considered a horrible stereotype. I... I've known gay men like that who genuinely enjoyed the nice representation of those characters.

I think the issue is the difference between how it's played off, and why it's being done. And I'll use a few examples.

Power Puff Girls has the Devil who suspiciously borders on a transmisogynistic and homophobic stereotype, being a villain. The femininity that the character displays is part of the villainous routine, and there's not much to the character outside of this. When the character feels like it, he drops his femininity to become masculine and aggressive. Top it off with being the devil, it's pretty bad. This is bad representation, if not for the villain part, then for the fact that there's no substance to it at all.

Which is actually what the problem with representation usually is. It's two-dimensional, and it's villanizing. The character is not only that way because it makes them more villainous, but it also helps make us look horrifying to the viewers.

What changes when you include Lil Nas X's recent release, MONTERO (Call me by your name)? It's a form of self-expression and it's inherently fighting back against the need to sanitize oneself for an oppressing class. It's fighting back against the idea that in order to exist, we need to be pure. To be accepted into heaven we atone for being gay. It's a rejection of Modern Religion and society's base treatment of us.

And it's necessary. We can't have the soft, loving, sanitized rep. It can suit plenty of us. Being accepted into heaven- in spite of our flaw of being gay? I've been told that before- isn't what everyone wants. In order to have reached acceptance, we must not readily display the "bad" part of ourselves.

If a straight woman was to want for a dude, it's highly more accepted than if a man were to do it. Regardless of the man's input?

I can't go to a conversation, openly as a trans man, and discuss my attraction to men as a man, and not get shut down, "because it's weird" but I do have to sit there and hear talk about anime boobs. Sometimes for hours. Because you know, that's acceptable in society, me liking men as a dude isn't.

And the thing is, neither is bad. A gay man being openly sexual and open about his sexuality in media, so long as it's not his defining trait and he's not demonized for it in the media- aka villainizing a gay man who is flamboyantly gay and gnc is very common- it's good.

A gay man who is soft, caring and understanding for his partner, emotionally mature and shies away from his sexuality is also good. It's not representation I need, but for younger audiences it is.

A gay man who is selective in his men vs a man who isn't. We need both.

Representation makes us feel human. Like we're not horrible for existing, and one set is never going to be enough.

For example. I'm a very androgynous trans man. I wear dresses and makeup.

I enjoy the feminine trans characters because they can exist and so can I. I also enjoy the masculine trans characters.

I hate the written trans experience and I absolutely cannot stand fanfiction regarding trans man, regardless of which it is.

It's dysphoria-inducing. Why? Because it focuses on the aspect of being trans rather than the aspect of existing as a man, and those aspects tend to center around dysphoria or being AFAB. Either way, the experience is uncomfortable for me to interact with and can really bother me.

That form of representation isn't for me. I live the trans experience. I don't need it in my media. I want a person who lives the average life and happens to be trans. Where being trans isn't the center of the story.

Other people need it the exact opposite, and if being trans isn't integral it bothers them. They feel like being trans is on a higher level of their identity and their rep needs to reflect that.

In fact, I talked to another trans friend of mine, who said that the kind of stories that focus on the body being AFAB was reaffirming to them and it helped them along. They loved content like that. Where as I couldn't bear it, it caused me issues and I saw it personally as harmful.

The thing about rep isn't actually the stereotypes, most of the time. IE a feminine trans man character isn't bad rep, so long as he's an actual human being.

I also think the person making it and the intent behind the character are important.

Example 1: A cis woman who makes a trans woman villain the epitome of masculinity who is pretending to be a woman, and is defeated by a woman, is just bad rep.

Why? Because a) it targets and puts down another minority to uplift women. b) it intentionally tries to erase trans women from being women. c) it reinforces the stereotype that trans women are just men trying to pretend to be women and are inherently violent. d) it demonized masculine trans women who may have been denied- or do not want- to medically transition.

Example 2: Created by someone who is LGBT+ with input from a trans man. A trans man is flamboyantly gay, talks about how much he loves men quite a lot, and is known for being fairly feminine. He enjoys hobbies such as boating and fishing, and his story is about connecting with his community and accepting himself as a person without needing to give a part of himself up.

Is example 2 real? I hope it is, I'd enjoy that. But this is good rep. Yes, it plays on stereotypes, but this is a person. Their story is about their identity and they have traits outside of the stereotype. For a flamboyantly gay trans man, this would be perfect. If you challenged toxic masculinity in the movie and addressed how trans men feel the need to overperform into toxic masculinity for acceptance and how it ruins our connections with our emotions, it would be pretty great.

Example 3: Created based on a real person. A character who is clearly autistic, and struggles with communication, who acts childish and clearly has a prominent lazy eye. This character struggles with tasks but gets them right. This is done with input and the person's input

Bad Rep?

If you said yes you'd be wrong. A character based on a real human being can't be bad representation. Because a) they're human, and b) there's a nuance to people that needs to be addressed.

Human beings will never be a monolith and having a monolith idea of representation to show oppressors what we're like ignores the fact of human diversity.

I can only speak for myself. This means the topic of race and how to handle racial issues in media vs the sanitization of the culture people of colour have, is not one I can speak on, and I wish I could have input on it.

I'll add if I'm not cohesive enough, it's usually because of Autism and possible Comorbid ADHD fighting each other.

If someone better at the topic can handle this, feel free to reblog and add on, I'll reblog additions and reply to any concerns made.

#representation #diversity in media #what's bad for you is good for me

2 notes · View notes

catsnraincoats-archive · 3 years

Note

I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject! (In reference to the post about discussing gender with cis people v.s trans people)

This is gonna be a rant controlled by my ADHD lmao

I was thinking about pronouns a bit ago and why I specifically don't let cis people use some of them. I got thinking of a great question related to it that I heard- someone asked "Do you really think Prince and The Rock experienced masculinity/being a man in the same way?" No! of course they didn't! And I have the same thing with she/her pronouns. I'm AFAB and have used she/her irl until, like, a month ago, but I still let and WANT trans people to use she/her for me- along with my other pronouns.

The thing is, I only want other trans people doing it. The way I use she/her is not because I am a woman, but it is because I am transmasc and directly want to oppose being a binary man.

The way most cis people will view gender is very... typical? but there's so many things to account for when talking about sex vs identity vs expression vs pronouns that they really have never had to think about. And because cis people- even "woke" ones- don't think about gender in the same way makes it impossible to have a nuanced conversation about it without having to preface everything with things a trans person would already understand.

There's also an interesting divide between, say, an AFAB enby who presents fem vs a trans woman who presents fem, and how they would view gender expression is an interesting and complex topic to be explored. a trans woman- especially one who came out after childhood- would not have the same image and idea of femininity as opposed to an enby who was socialized as a woman (I'm begging y'all to understand that socialization has a big impact on how you interact with the world, and it is important when discussing trans issues)

I had a short conversation with a cis person about a given name vs a name you chose yourself and how they can hold equal importance, but they had never had to think about that so there was no way for them to,, get the point. Similarly, cis people will misinterpret ANYTHING if given the chance. If I talk about the dysphoria debate or mogai or anything like that, but I don't discuss it for hours and go into everything, there's always going to be that cognitive dissonance between what they've chosen to believe and what point I'm trying to make.

I was looking into an interview the other day, about an AMAB man who was raised 100% as a girl. Not in that he thought he was trans, he was raised as a cis girl up into around,,, early highschool? And now he is very secure in his masculinity and as a man. A question like "Would he be considered trans?" is not something I could discuss with a cis person because they only have so much of an idea of what transgender counts as- which would just be "Not IDing with what you were assigned at birth." a cis persons relationship with gender is never something they've had to confront, and they don't really question what it means to be male or female.

Ask yourself now- What does it mean to be your gender? why are you whatever you identify as? That's also an interesting question for women who use he/they/any pronouns that isn't she, or men who use she/they/any pronoun that isn't he. What specifically makes them their own gender, and use "opposing" pronouns? (btw I firmly believe pronouns don't = gender but that isn't the focus.)

Gender is very much a social thing- albeit, an important one, but still just. a social construct. This is why so many societies have more than two genders. In of itself, gender isn't real.

Trans people HAVE questioned what it means to be their gender- maybe not framed that specific way, and maybe not with a solid answer, but they"ve still questioned it. Cis people don't have the nuance and understanding to be able to discuss more complex things.

This isn't to say trans people just KNOW what I mean when I have discussions with them! That's the point of debates, to change your understanding. I've had to explain countless times how my view on gender effects how and why I use she/her. However, they simply have the ABILITY to think about and understand what it means.

Gender is a complex subject and no one really knows what it means, but I'm going to actively avoid it with any cis person.

#If anyone wants to tlak to me more on this PLEASE shoot an ask my brain is going wild with this topic #I didnt want to make the podt too long so I couldnt include everything #long post #asks #anon

4 notes · View notes

sun-stomach · 4 years

Text

Things we need to discuss

The fact that although things have evolved and changed since then, pansexual does have transphobic orgins and rose out of a misunderstanding of bisexuality. Lest we forget the label was forged by misguided bisexuals, yeah some of us kinda screwed up. It wasn't an external thing.

The fact tha cis people may not recognize things or understand how some things are transphobic and that we need to listen to trans people and their perspectives and learn more about transness in general. I am saying this as a cis person because I didn't understand that aspect of the whole debacle at first.

Things we need to aknowledge

The fact that we have collectively been supporting pansexuality along bisexuality for years before without being aware of the transphobic implications

Pansexuals are an established community and it's only natural that they're partial to that label

Pan and bi have been differed by more things than just including trans people or "not". (Ie. Not having a prefence for a gender over another or not having a fluctuation of attraction between genders, etc.)

Some pan and bi people have recognized that the distinction between their labels is more and more nebulous and have been cool with it.

There are pan and bi people who are not cool with each other as well. A lot of bi people are understandably hurt and and I am sure some pan people use their label to claim some sort of superiority over bi people and others who don't understand how it could be transphobic.

Being attracted to multiple genders is a complicated experience so it's understandable that different people have different perspectives and ways of describing their attraction

Things I am seeing

A lot of people suddenly turning on pan people and calling them biphobic and transphobic without much explanation

Bi, pan and nb and other trans people fighting and being completely tone deaf to eachothers different experiences and struggles

Basically very unproductive and misguided infighting, we're just "choosing sides" and fighting instead of discussing anything and trying to find a solution.

No "side" is going to win this way.

Now I'm not sure what the solution is but I know that pan people are already here and we can't and should not just shame them away or into other labels. That is not what labels are for nor how they should be used. To paint them all as transphobic and biphobic just for using that label is frankly shortsighted and not that much different than calling bi people transphobic because of biphobia. Yes I know the context is different but the result is the same, you shame people for the label they chose. I am also frankly quite sure that most pan people weren't even aware of it's orgins and chose it because it made for sense to describe their attraction to people that way.

I know a lot of other i people have been hurt by pansexuality and I am not saying you can't be hurt but more than anyone you should consider that perhaps there is more nuance to this conversation and that people aren't inherently transphobic for choosing a label.

Personally I think it'd be a great start too stop trying to differentiate the two by using the "shorthand" definitions of bi and pan as attracted to 2+ genders/my gender and others vs all genders and switch to something else. Pehaps:

both are the attraction to all genders they just use different labels

they're synonymous, pan is another word for bi

both are attracted to all genders there's just different history,etc.

I know many people still view pan and bi as different but honestly a lot of people don't and to get anywhere maybe we should work towards that instead of tearing eachother down. We don't have to put anyone down to bring justice to bi and trans people. On the flipside we also have to hear how bi and trans people have been hurt by this and see what else is left to make right.

#pansexuality #bisexuality #mspec solidarity #mspec discourse #pan discourse #lgbt #mspec

16 notes · View notes