#which is like i don't want the trans experience to be defined by suffering but also i think that's why you should have MANY dif trans hcs

[moe-broey]

*pulls out a crumpled up piece of paper*

My transfemme Fire Emblem Headcanons. Include:

> Rosado, transfemme non-binary, most likely to use neopronouns or multiple sets of pronouns (fae/faer, she/he, never let 'em know your next move)

> Forrest, has been on estrogen for years but still says "I'm a prince" if asked and insists on using he/him pronouns (may be closeted, may be in denial, may do so out of a sense of obligation, may be a case of pronouns being "indicative of but not exclusive to gender identity", may also just have an exceedingly complicated relationship with the gender)

> Loki, a shapeshifter, chooses to look Like That (and she's so based for it)

> Gullveig. Just. Everything Seidr/Heidr/Kvasir and Gullveig have going on. Is so transgender. To me

And on vibes alone

> Triandra

#fire emblem #i just think. more transfemme hcs in the world. peace and love 👍 #i'm transmasc so you can take these w a grain of salt lmfao #also. very much. just the selection of charas i'm in deepest for esp feh oc wise. #i don't have a lot of fleshed out thoughts on trans triandra aside from it's just normal actually. sometimes people are just trans. #and also. like. a lot of trans people do not/did not have easy home lives. like it just makes sense to me #which is like i don't want the trans experience to be defined by suffering but also i think that's why you should have MANY dif trans hcs #like i think rosado perfectly captures trans joy and being dedicated to advocacy and social justice #meanwhile i think. forrest is in the trenches. i'm so sorry. #also the transformation of seidr into gullveig fucks w me SO HARD. i am so insane i know #but it really does feel like a trans allegory. being outed before you were ready. before you even fully knew what it meant for yourself. #and having it fuck your entire life. like she is so transgender to me #also i think any shape shifter is trans by default. ESP if they have a 'main form' they typically present as. #loki is a titted up as wide as she is tall scantly clad goth woman. on purpose. #this is. how i feel. speaking my truth. ect ect #rosado #fe forrest #fe loki #gullveig #triandra

[musical-chick-13]

LMAO, not a t/er/f using a MAKIMA MEME template to scream about tHoSe eViL tRaNs pEOpLe

Oh. Oh, honey (derogatory). That is not the social commentary slam dunk you think it is.

#I feel like this would be the equivalent of me trying to use like...a cersei quote as a slogan for disability activism #like these are BAD PEOPLE. I know they're not real but do you want this to be the face of your Super Serious Social Movement??? #(obviously disability activism is a GOOD thing and transphobia is NOT but I'm saying this in general principle) #also...something something the turfs (yes it's spelled that way on purpose I don't want them finding this post accidentally) act like trans #people are inherently predatory against women and in this case the fictional character they use to reference their beliefs IS AN ACTUAL #PREDATOR WHO IS. IN THE TEXT. 100%. NON-NEGOTIABLE. PREYING ON A TEENAGER. I AM NOT MAKING THAT UP THAT IS LITERALLY THE STORY #IT DRIVES FORWARD THE THEMES AND EVERYTHING #ALSO also...her whole thing is 'No More Suffering' which is kind of at odds with a group of people who DEFINE WOMENHOOD BY SUFFERING #so basically: in addition to being an asshole...tell me you didn't read the manga (because it was specifically a manga screencap) #without outright saying you didn't read the manga #their views are shit their media literacy is shit and their memes are shit honestly at this point I would just get off the internet if I #were them #tw: transphobia mention #I got an influx of new followers lately so just to be clear: this is a trans support zone. trans people are the gender they say they are. #my so-called 'womanhood' as a cis lady has never been nor will ever be threatened by the presence of trans women or any gender identity #or experience different from my own. you don't like that then a) you're wrong and b) gtfo

[edonee]

The belief that gender is a feeling, something interior and unrelated to sex is not only false, but it also upholds gender stereotypes. What does a transgender person mean, when they say they identify as the opposite gender? I've actually posed the question to a lot of trans people, and the answers were always something along the lines of "I liked things made for boys as a kid. I felt different from other girls. I don't feel connected to my biological gender because I behave differently" (coming from women who identify as trans) or "I preferred girls toys as a kid, I was always drawn toward dressing more femininely, wearing make-up, etc." (from men who identify as trans). I then ask, why does that mean you are a different gender? I thought we were all on the same page with the whole "boys can like pink, girls can like blue" argument. I mean, everyone has been saying that for decades, and we all agree that those are gender stereotypes, right??

So I always asked myself why transgender people used those as arguments to prove their point. The other argument, that a lot of trans people might bring up after reading this, is "Well, sex dysphoria is a thing though". And yeah, it is a disgnosable mental disorder, and there are people who seriously suffer from it. But so is anorexia. Do we see doctors performing liposuctions on people suffering from anorexia, though? Of course not: mutilating the body of a mentally unwell person is inhumane. People who suffer from eating disorders are offered therapy in order to recover and create a healthy relationship with their body. So why would dysphoric people get "gender affirming surgery" (which is an interesting name, because I thought y'all said gender isn't dependent on sex???) instead of analyzing the reasons why their body brings them distress? The whole narrative of "being born in the wrong body" is so...vague. And, *trust me*, I've tried to put myself in transgender people's shoes and comprehend their arguments, but they are just insubstantial. I see why for some of them (especially women) identifying as the opposite gender would be favorable: for women, because it's an attempt to escape their fate in a misogynistic world. It's freeing (I speak from personal experience here, I identified as non-binary for a while). It feels like saying fuck you to the patriarchy. You feel the rush of eluding womanhood (or at least you think you do). But, at the end of the day, it's truly just that: eluding. And (unless you medically transition, to the point you pass as male) it's not going to change anything. People hate us because of our sex, not because of our "gender identity". Men won't care whether you identify as ftm, non-binary, agender or anything else. They hate you because you are Female. That's what misogyny is at its core. And, if you push the idea that gender is just a feeling, something that you can identify as, and that biological sex doesn't matter, and that "anyone can be a woman, actually!" you are inevitably going to water down the definition of Woman until it is just that: a sensation, something intangibile. How can we fight for a category of people, if we can't even define who we're fighting for? Also, Women are the only class this applies to. Take Race as an example: the movement of resistance against racism knows exactly who they are fighting for. The definition of a Black person is not up for debate. People who identify as "transracial" (mostly trolls) are heavily criticized, and they are obviously not included in the Black movement. Why do we have to accommodate males in our movement? Use whatever pronouns you want, get all the surgeries you want, take whatever hormones: it's not going to do anything to defy misogyny. @kieransskin

#radblr #radical feminism #radical feminists do interact #radical feminist safe #transgender #terfsafe #misogny #gender critical #feminism #nonbinary #radical feminist community #terfblr

[nothorses]

Do you think that trans men experience internalized misogyny?

From my initial understanding I believed that internalized misogyny was the misogynistic beliefs you had weaponized against yourself. Although apparently this includes the way you externalize it as well if you’re affected? Though, when people talk about trans men, they just call them misogynistic, as opposed to cis women who tend to be given the benefit of the doubt more and are told they have internalized misogyny.

Now I don’t doubt that trans men experience misogyny, and will continue to be affected by it even if they pass (though I’m sure how can shift). But it always feels as though some people believe trans men’s misogyny is more harmful than other demographics affected?

Tbh, I think "internalized misogyny" is more useful when it's defined in a more narrow and specific way than, like, any misogyny that is expressed by any woman.

This feels like a really solid "defining factor" for me, personally:

(From the Wikipedia page for "Inernalized Oppression")

I like the phrasing here of "against their own best interest" a lot. While it could be argued that any form of oppression is inherently against everyone's best interests, including the so-called "privileged" group-- and I would absolutely agree with that idea-- I think it's fairly easy to understand the difference between oppression that is perpetuated for (perceived) self-gain, vs. oppression that is perpetuated because one earnestly buys into the idea that they are inherently less valuable in some way.

I think this also avoids the tendency to define oppression as "internalized" or not based on the amount of harm caused, or to excuse certain people's bigotry because it also harms them personally.

Internalized misogyny really isn't inherently less harmful when women are the ones perpetuating it, and that framing isn't helping anyone! There are certain situations in which (cis) women have less power to perpetuate misogynistic violence or oppression than (cis) men do, absolutely. But that is a question of power to act in the first place, not the actual impact of those actions.

If anything, I would argue that I personally have suffered far more, and more severe, misogynistic violence at the hands of cis women than I have ever suffered from cis men. It genuinely doesn't matter to me whether those women were acting out of "internalized misogyny" or not.

It can be really helpful to understand the cause of someone's misogyny; why someone is motivated to perpetuate those ideas is going to inform the best approach to changing their beliefs and behavior. But that's a different question than "how harmful is this", or "should we excuse this person's bigotry".

So yes, transmascs can experience internalized misogyny. So much misogyny runs counter to our best interests. The same goes for transfems, and trans folks who don't fit into either category. I'd argue that anyone can experience internalized misogyny; including cis men, because, again, oppression ultimately runs counter to everyone's best interests.

More importantly, though, I think we need to be asking ourselves why we want to know whether someone's misogyny is "internalized" or not. What are we going to do with that information? Is it an excuse for the person perpetuating it, or do we need to answer that question in order to strategize, and push for growth and change?

#transandrophobia #trans #transgender #feminism

[sailor-rowling]

I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.

I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring. She isn't more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing. What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn't stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she's done either of those things, or ever wants to.

Womanhood isn't a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.

Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live. When trans activists say 'I thought you didn't want to be defined by your biology,' it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand. Women don't want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It's one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either. Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don't and can't, because we belong to our sex class.

Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.

I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.

J.K. Rowling

#jk rowling #j.k. rowling #pro jkr #jkr #they basically made her write her essay from 2020 again and still will not read this

[autolenaphilia]

Misandry is not real

Apparently some of the transmisandry/androphobia people have evolved into believing in just plain old misandry now.

Which is such an absurd concept, because we live in a patriarchy. Misandry is the idea that men are oppressed for being men. And the problem with that is that they are not. Not that men can't be oppressed, but they are oppressed for other reasons.

For fuck's sake. I realize not everyone has had my experiences of listening to men talk while they believe i'm one of them while actually listening with critical distance and being secretly horrified. But come on.

cw for discussions of rape, because i have to explain some things.

The father joking about shooting his daughter's boyfriends is a jokey expression of ownership over his daughter. It's the old misogynist idea that daughters are the property of their fathers until they get married and become property of their husbands. And fathers are still often a bit uncomfortable with their daughters exercising autonomy in who they choose to date and marry. The dad wants her to only marry a man he approves of. And that sentiment is expressed in a joke.

And like men are worried over other men being predatory and raping "their" women, but it's again an expression of ownership over women. Misogynist men view women as a resource men compete over. And are offended by rape only when it's committed by other men and they view it as essentially theft. Like until the 1960s rape was defined legally as only happening outside of marriage (and these laws took decades to change, these legal reforms just started in the 60s). Husbands could force sex from their wives as much as they want. The worry was solely about men raping women who belonged to other men. Due to white supremacy, this is often expressed in fears of black men raping white women, who are seen as belonging to white men.

And you can see this in how narratives of rape are still focused on the "stranger danger". The weirdo in a ski mask hiding in the bushes. Despite rape being way more often committed by boyfriends and husbands. The weirdo hiding in the bushes is a way of externalizing the problem of rape upon men coded autistic or mentally ill, which is ableism not misandry.

And the threat is not seen as exclusively coming from other men. Cis lesbians are still seen as women, and a part of lesbophobia is them being accused of being sexual predators against other women. That's not misandry. The fear over sapphic trans women raping cis women is just a particularly virulent form of that. It's particularly bad because sapphic trans women live at the intersection of misogyny, transphobia and lesbophobia.

Masculinity is full of fears about women being threatened by rape. But this is not a concern about men having sex with women without consent in general. If a man are seen as the rightful owner of a woman he can rape her as much as he wants. So it's not about misandry about men as a group. It's about other men violating that ownership, and the men who are bad in these narratives are viewed as such because of things like race.

These other negative stereotypes that men supposedly believe about themselves, queer people like me and the transmasc writing the post i quoted might view them as solely negative. And we do that for good reason. But I don't think that's how the men who internalize these ideas about masculinity sees them. Instead they are viewed as positives.

Their anger and aggression is righteous, men need it to defend family and nation against aggressors. The "stupidity" is seen in anti-intellectual terms as a clear focus on the facts and common sense as opposed to ivory tower academic theorizing that have lost contact with reality (such as gender studies and queer theory). Conservative Masculine men often have a fascistoid contempt for weakness (i wish harald ofstad was translated to english), so having little empathy for suffering is seen as good. Empathizing with women, trans people or immigrants is seen as making you vulnerable to manipulation from them. The narrative of the trans woman asking to be seen as a woman and be let into women's bathrooms to commit rape is a good example of this kind of anti-empathy narrative. There is similar rhetoric about immigrants.

And the thing about how men should either die in war or work hard to provide for their family. These things are seen as positive by mainstream society, men are glorified as heroes for doing them. And such work is glorified in a way that women's work is not. Like i'm a leftist and thus critical both of militarism and capitalist ideology about work, but those are the problem, not some mythical misandry.

Outside of some feminist spaces, (cis) men being masculine is seen as a good thing. And those deemed men by society are punished for not fulfilling them. Feminists see those same stereotypes as being bad. Masculinity does limit men, but it also is an expression of power in a patriarchy. It gives them a license to do horrible things towards women. Not just women of course, masculinity also legitimatizes violence against non-binary people, and even other men as masculinity plays a huge part in homophobia but also racism.

(gods, considering the rhetoric i've seen sometimes, I, a proud trans woman, will probably be accused of being a terf for writing this, which is basic feminist analysis. LIke people have no idea of what radfem ideology actually means, and confuse like basic feminist analysis with radfem appropriation of that analysis. Like the actual problems with radfem ideology like bioessentialism, transmisogyny and swerfery seem to not be part of some people's terf spotting radar. )

Speaking of transmisogyny, this is what made me really angry with this post, because it's personal.

I don't know how to put this gently, but saying that transmisogyny is actually due to hatred of men is actually really transmisogynistic. This is not the only post on the interwebs that do this, not by far, but it's galling everytime.

This is not even the worst of it, because at least it partially attributes our oppression to misogyny.

But this kind of rhetoric is still misgendering trans women. It defines us in the discussion of our oppression through the misgendering rhetoric of transmisogynists. It claims to oppose transmisogyny as it furthers it, gives weight to its rhetoric.

It takes transmisogynist claims at face value. Like the basic claim of terf rhetoric is that "We are just concerned about men hurting women, and trans women are men, so they have to kept from female spaces." And these posts just accepts the idea that this kind of thing is aimed at men, except its clearly not, because men aren't hurt by this in the slightest, trans women are. Men aren't seen as infiltrating women's spaces to rape them, trans women are. Men aren't excluded from public spaces by things like bathrooms bans, trans women are.

When you can't go to the bathroom safely, you are efffectively excluded or at least strongly limited from going out in public.

The problem is that it imagines transmisogyny as solely consisting of iinterpersonal interactions and hateful rhetoric instead of a system of structural oppression that turns transfems into a discriminated and oppressed underclass in all patriarchal societies.

And transfems is an underclass that don't have their own oppression in common with cis men, as this "transmisogyny is actually misandry" ideaimplies, but in fact are oppressed by them.

It's basically a claim that doesn't believe trans women are women, but gender non-conforming men. It's basically saying If trans women don't pass as cis, and are therefore misgendered as men, that means we are oppressed as men. It thus furthers the inherent transmisogyny in that misgendering. It ignores our womanhood to discuss our being oppressed as men. It's absurd since cis men aren't at all oppressed like we are.

Again, men can be oppressed, but they aren't oppressed for being men and trans women definitely aren't oppressed for being men. A meaningful solidarity in fighting oppression between some trans women and some men can be grounded in other forms of oppression that affect members of both groups like racism or ableism or transphobia, but there is no single oppression of misandry that unites them.

Cis men are just not treated like trans women are. Misgendering us as men is not giving us the male privilege they have. That kind of misgendering rhetoric is a way to hurt us with words instead of some honest description of the the violence that is being enacted upon us.

I'm not saying that gender non-conforming men (and homophobia against gay men is strongly related to that) aren't oppressed. But they are not oppressed for being men, they are oppressed for their gender non-conformity. And the hatred and disgust against men for being feminine is strongly related to misogyny, because being feminine or womanlike is seen as bad or lesser.

That's because misogyny is a fundamental part of how a patriarchal society operates. Misandry is not real.

#my writings #cw: rape #transmisogyny

[kittythelitter]

Thinking about a hypothetical episode of Community with the original 7 where Shirley brings one of her friends from church to Greendale, let's call her Mariah

This friend is a trans woman who is a devout Christian and because she's Christian Shirley listened to her about trans issues and stuff and decided if this nice Christian person wants to be addressed as a woman the Christian thing to do is to treat her like a woman and be respectful of how she wants to be addressed. Whether Shirley personally views Mariah as a woman is ambiguous.

Pierce doesn't clock her or even understand what's going on when the group discusses that she's trans, he just sees a hot new lady and is constantly sexually harassing her and she calls him a chaser which he decides is a new word for like a pick up artist and starts self identifying with it and ends up having his own mostly off screen adventure about it.

Britta immediately outs herself as a terf but gets all her terf talking points slightly wrong. Her whole arc is just her talking herself in circles until she sees Mariah experience transmisogyny and is like. Actually what defines a woman is suffering in society as a result of your gender which means trans women are women. But at the end of the episode she meets Mariah's boyfriend who is also trans and sees someone be transphobic to him and is like. But if you're suffering aren't you also a woman? And that's the very end of the episode so instead of a resolution about it we just leave Britta to whatever she's debating with herself and move on.

Jeff doesn't have an opinion of trans people going in but defends trans people just to disagree with Britta, but as he argues in defense of trans people he manages to get really into what he's saying and ends up doing some public speaking for a trans rights group on campus. (The Dean is there just because Jeffrey is there being all eloquent and manly, half learns terminology and starts referring to himself as "Dean-der Fluid" and "non-dean-ery".) A trans guy talks to Jeff about his hair and his workout routine and Jeff realizes he and the trans guys at the event have a lot in common in terms of how they perform masculinity in order to get others to see them the way they see themselves/want to be seen.

Abed similarly spends time talking with the trans group about performing gender among other things and knowing yourself even when others don't understand you or want to change you. They complain about transphobia in tv and he admits that community has had some transphobic bits and talks with them about better representation and problematic stereotypes and tries to get one of them to stay on as a series regular in order to make community a better more representative show.

Troy and Annie both try to figure out if being attracted to Mariah makes them gay. They both come to the conclusion that Mariah is a woman so Annie is probably some kind of queer and Troy is still not gay for being attracted to her. They both go to the event with Jeff and Abed.

Troy meets a really hot trans guy and is like. Okay i am attracted to men. And then we see flashbacks of him clearly flirting with and/or going on dates with guys since he got to Greendale and just not realizing it. He, rather than having a bi crisis has a "I had a chance with all those hotties and i blew it" crisis before hitting on the trans guy who he thought was flirting with him but who was actually under the impression that troy and abed were a couple and was trying to figure out if they'd be down for a 3-way.

Meanwhile Annie starts doing research with the pamphlets laid out at the events to figure out what kind of queer she is and every time it cuts back to her theres more and more queers around her flirting with her. Including some butch lesbians, some nonbinary people, and some trans guys who are all enamoured with her sweet femme charm. (We get snippets of conversations that have things like compulsory heterosexuality, different flavors of bi, asexuality etc) she turns up at the end with a lesbian pride pin on her backpack and her hair and lip gloss very mussed.

#community #ficlet #shirley bennett #britta perry #jeff winger #abed nadir #troy barnes #annie edison #lesbian annie edison #dean pelton #i just. love lesbian annie #also thining a lot about gender with this group.

[sophieinwonderland]

Saying "you're white so therefore you can't have an opinion on transrace (only real POC can)" is disturbingly similar to "you like men so you can't have an opinion on bi lesbians (only real lesbians can)". Like sure, if you claim that only "real" people of color are allowed to have an opinion and define "real" people of color as inherently excluding transrace, then you've created a circular argument of "white transrace people can't defend transrace identities because they're white and therefore can't be transrace and are therefore white and therefore can't defend transrace".

And then they just ignore every POC who disagrees with them, which sure sounds racist to me! (Especially when in every transx community I've been in, the majority of transrace people have been bodily POC)

Never mind too that these are just word for word terf arguments. "Men white people invading women's people of color's spaces because of misogyny racism because sex race is biological and only real women people of color can decide what a woman POC is" and then they're like "It's different!" and you're like "how" and they're like "because it's racist!!" and you're like "okay how" and they're like "because it just is! it's different because I say so as a person of color!!" and then they proceed to ignore people of color saying it's okay.

I also don't think marginalization allows you any significant say whatsoever on different related marginalized identities. Just like transfems are not the authorities on transmasc experiences and disordered/traumagenic systems are not the authorities on nondisordered/endogenic plurality, being cisID for a given marginalized identity doesn't actually give you the right to speak on that transID.)

If it did, cis women would be authorities on all trans experiences and singlets would be authorities on all tulpa/created system experiences (not an exact equivalent, but close, and some tulpa/created systems do consider themselves transplural, which I think is valid).

It's just a clusterfuck all the way down. Also as a disabled person, I strongly suspect that transabled identities in particular could be observed neurologically just like BIID can. I'm leery of doing that for nonmedical identities because of biological essentialism (though I recognize the potential scientific merit in it regardless). Not only that, but I wanna say: why is it ableist to want to be an identity that's not inherently a bad thing?

Why is it ableist to want to have a disability, even one that includes suffering as part of the experience, when it's not bad to BE disabled when you DON'T consent to it? Is being disabled only acceptable to these people because disabled people don't have the option of being abled? Is being abled a better, more desirable state? If disability pride only allowed because you can't help not being abled? Because THAT sounds horribly ableist.

For that matter, this applies to all transx identities!

I have quite literally dozens of disabilities ranging from physical to neurological, just counting overarching diagnoses alone. Counting individual things I struggle with or can't do, it would be hundreds. I WANT to have the disabilities I already have. I'd want most of them if I DIDN'T have them because they are central to who I am and the causal relationship there goes both ways.

I'm literally totally fine with people wanting my disabilities, too. Wanna be autistic? Oh cool, autism can be difficult but it's dear to me in a lot of ways too. Wanna experience psychosis? Hell yeah, I love being psychotic and honestly the only part I struggle much with is the negative symptoms that come with schizophrenia specifically (plus you can literally induce psychosis with drugs, and not always the scarybad kind either). Want to have a histamine disorder? I'll offer mine to you like I keep offering my boobs to my transfem partner, I don't like experiencing it but more power to ya. Want chronic pain? Considering I wouldn't actually get rid of mine because I literally like experiencing pain, I'm right there with you. Want IBS? I mean I don't get it, but sure!

(And yeah "want" vs "feels like they innately have but the body doesn't match" is an imperfect distinction, I'm using want as in "wants the body to align with internal identity" in the same way that trans people sometimes "want" to transition".)

Idk, I've just never seen an argument against transx identities that wasn't recycled terf rhetoric that "is different because it is and I say so!" or actively bigoted itself. The more arguments I heard against transID stuff, the more I was convinced people are just bigoted against a minority group they don't understand because they think their own discomfort is a good indicator of morality.

And ngl! The first time I was referred to as cisx for some of my marginalized identities, I had a visceral emotional reaction! I thought people were essentially saying I had privilege over and oppressed transx people of that identity, because that's how it works with gender.

But... it's not even always that simple with gender (example: white middle class trans woman vs black working class cis man) and also... that's an assumption *I* made and is utterly untrue. It's closer to how trans men can't oppress and don't have privilege over trans women: cis men oppress cis women, but all trans people are marginalized.

Once I worked through that, I was able to see that transx people were some of the most supportive, inclusive, safe people I'd ever met. I literally feel safer in transx spaces about my cisx marginalized identities than I do in many cisx spaces for those identities. I feel safer as a queer plural disabled person in transx spaces than I do in queer, plural, and disabled spaces! In part because they do not allow any form of bigotry (unlike say, ableist queer spaces or pluralmisic disabled spaces) but mostly just because... they're unconditionally accepting of identity and only judge people based on whether or not their actions are bigoted.

I wish we had more spaces that recognized that any innate and honest identity (so not like "haha attack helicopter gender" as a joke that someone doesn't actually ID as) is good faith and is not harmful, because identities are thought-based and thoughtcrimes aren't real. Idk.

Thank you for adding your experiences.

My own views on transIDs are complicated and I don't agree with everything here, but I am glad you found a community you feel safe in. I do agree that a lot of the anti-transX talking points sound exactly like TERF talking points, and in the case of anti-trace arguments, often the way they try to claim it's different is appealing to racial realism.

And like you, I strongly suspect that mental transability is something that could be observable in the brain like BIID.

There are a couple thing you mention that I really want to talk about as they've bothered me for a while with this whole debate.

Saying "you're white so therefore you can't have an opinion on transrace (only real POC can)" is disturbingly similar to "you like men so you can't have an opinion on bi lesbians (only real lesbians can)"

It's not even just not having an opinion. It's about having the wrong opinion. I've personally gotten a ton of hate for saying I'm largely neutral on the subject. I don't identify by transIDs, but have talked to people in the community and believe they're good faith identities.

In contrast, people wouldn't say "you can't have an opinion" if your opinion agrees with them.

And then they just ignore every POC who disagrees with them, which sure sounds racist to me! (Especially when in every transx community I've been in, the majority of transrace people have been bodily POC)

And this is a HUGE issue I have with the anti-transX side.

There's a narrative being spread that Trace individuals are largely white people "pretending" to be PoC.

What I'm largely observing from the TransX community is the opposite. Many of the people who sent asks to me were POC-bodied. There was also a poll of the Trace community showing that a lot of them felt that their identities were a result of racial trauma, or didn't know if it was related to racial trauma (still suggesting they had a history of it.)

To me, the anti-trace rhetoric comes across as lateral aggression being disguised as anti-racism.

You have a group of mostly PoC who are branding another group of mostly PoC-bodied individuals as racists for wanting the right to choose their own identities instead of being defined by their ancestry or skin color.

What's worse though is that they're actively set on bringing white people into the Trace conflict. It's incredibly common to see white people with transX identities in their DNIs, all in the name of being anti-racist... or at least appearing anti-racist in their social circles.

My assessment... as someone who I'll admit is an outside observer to both communities... is that the anti-trace side has been leveraging the concept of white guilt to get white people to join their side in ostracizing and abusing a group made up mostly of PoC-bodied individuals.

Which just seems... super messed up to me...

#transid #transx #rad inclus #trace #diarace #diaracial #transabled #discourse #radinclus

[josies-not-suicidal-now]

can i ask what circumgender is? i tried to look it up, but i'm not sure whether the results are accurate. (also not sure if your post was sarcastic or not, haha, sorry)

I agree that the tone of my post wasn't especially precise, I made it quickly and emotionally

circumgender is a word used by like 5 twinks on this webbed site and we all disagree with each other, but if I was gonna describe it I would say it's the gender of a person who has pursued transition and in their pursuit ended up with the gender that corresponds to their birth sex, the idea being that instead of this journey being a straight line away from their gender assigned at birth, and then a straight line back, it's a spiral, a circle, they've walked the entire circumference of gender, and even on returning to familiarity they see things a new way

in my case I started E about 5 years ago, and the longer I've been on estrogen the more comfortable I've felt identifying openly as a man. Like of course I continue to be plural and multigender, and in that my relationship to manhood isn't cis, it's circumgender

I posted about circumgender people, because right now, with good reason, a lot of trans women are very angry about how comfortable people are ignoring or outright denying the existence of transmisogyny, and in their desire to weed out transmisogynists they're attacking the idea of "afab trans women" because they see not experiencing transmisogyny while identifying with transfemininity as a mockery of the real experiences they've experienced.

you'll notice that an afab trans woman fits pretty comfortably into the definition of circumgender. Now I wanna say very clearly, anybody out there who denies the existence of transmisogyny, or thinks they can take some T and throw on a dress and understand what transmisogyny feels like, as far as I am concerned they're just transmisogynists like any other run of the mill sexist and transphobe, and I want them to own up to their bullshit. At the end of the day though, I am in community with these people, and if your argument is "you haven't suffered the way I have, therefor you don't have the right to identify with my label" I feel like you're defining transfemininity around suffering, which I don't think should be core to any identity, and you're making a stolen valor argument. Like I think we need to understand that there is a difference between claiming you have some experiences in common with trans women, which I think is an entirely reasonable reason to identify with any label, vs. claiming you are tma when you're not, which I think is batshit insane, but I also haven't seen anyone doing.

I hereby unequivocally condemn any perisex afab person who claims to be tma.

Now take a step back and notice what a tiny unimportant group of people we are haggling about here, what a big ruckus made for a group of people I know maybe three of, none of which claim to be tma, and I live on "tiny queer community" tumblr

And what I'm really afraid of, what my post was actually about what I notice time and time again, is that the same people who want to attack these completely insignificant, politically nonexistent microlabels in the name of liberating trans women from transmisognyny, it's those people who are the fastest to call me tme

[justanimp]

as someone who is also trans and cisautistic, transautistic people are very valid. Being autistic isn't all doom and suffering, and saying acting like it's the worst thing in the world is what's actually ableist and just hurts cisautistic and transautistic people alike. Autism isn't suffering, I'm sorry you think it is. Transphobes think womanhood is suffering, but some people want to be women. Taking joy in something someone else finds pain in is not ableist.

no. i wasn't saying that autism is doom and gloom all of the time. what i'm saying is that transautistic people trivialize autism. (def of trivialize i'm using: make (something) seem less important, significant, or complex than it really is). they make it a quirk while undermining actual autistic experiences, and autistic people, which harms the community. for me, at least, autism can be a pain, as i sometimes can't speak, or struggle to socialize. if you're autistic, and don't experience that, that's perfectly fine, as autism isn't defined by pain. but, you have to know that ppl like me exist. autism isn't fun for all who have it.

"Taking joy in something someone else finds pain in is not ableist." this sentence shows to me that transautistic ppl only see autism as something to have fun with, which is pretty ableist. usually, if someone was enjoying something, i'd be fine with it, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. but, transautistics do hurt ppl. they make autistic people's problems look less important than they actually are, by making it look like a trend, and making it harder for us to get help.

i am not a trend.

I do hope you understand where i'm coming from.

#tw transautism #transid #transautistic #transautism #antitransx #trans #lgbt

[ot3]

I looked over what I could find of your thoughts on asexuality, and I THINK I understand your core argument—it’s hard to say because a lot of the posts I found kind of talked around the ideas, and I can’t exactly search “ace” on an ace attorney fanblog and see success haha

But if I pieced things together correctly, it centers around kind of … using the same narrative as other queer identities to [I couldn’t find a conclusion from your posts, just the premises saying this did the ace identity a disservice as well as grossly undercut the gay/trans narratives they pull from].

I’m not sure there’s room for asexuality in the queer narrative, if that’s the problem. If, because everyone experiences sexual violence and shaming unless they’re a part of a small minority, the oppression/pain narrative doesn’t fit.

Every June, people celebrate pride and the exclusion of ace identities immediately follows, usually because those who are ace haven’t suffered in the ways other queers have. The gate is kept for those who think queerness is defined by oppression first and foremost. The gate will continue to be kept regardless of any argument of suffering, no matter if it’s original or ripped—primarily, I assume, because the argument isn’t that aces haven’t suffered enough, but because people genuinely think they aren’t queer, and they’ve picked the one point ace individuals might have a hard time navigating around (because as you said, all sexual expression or non-expression is punished if it is not part of a small celebrated minority), and if they DO argue that they’ve experienced sexual violence, it’s easy to reject.

I’d like to hear your thoughts, if you can spare them, on whether aces are queer—and what queerness is, in the case that it excludes them.

Because once we get into suffering politics, I feel like we inevitably find ourselves in radfem territory. One queer experience is often going to be drastically different from another. A white lesbian knows not the struggles of a trans black woman, but both of them are queer.

So yes, let’s say the ace community is erroneously using language that is disingenuous to everyone’s experiences. The queer community is demanding pain from them in order to be valid. The pain is not exclusive but nearly universal, but oddly never enough. What changes? Are the aces not queer? Or is queerness as an exclusive pain narrative the core of its identity?

Perhaps I missed something in what I read and you aren’t using pain narratives—the concept of transforming queer narratives for acceptance and therefore discrediting all identities involved read as protective, which raised some flags. What I can see of your argument I don’t even necessarily disagree with.

But if the argument is that everyone suffers sexual violence if they’re not part of the celebrated sexual minority, doesn’t that neuter the whole sexual spectrum? That’s bunching everyone into a massive subgroup of not cishet white male. The aces are saying they experience a different sexual violence from straight cis Carla and gay Jerry. Or, not using a pain lens, the aces are saying they experience a different sexual identity from others. Is that not queerness?

Maybe that’s what you’re asking for. But if we’re excluding sexual violence from the narrative because it’s too general a premise, then that HAS to be excluded from your definition of queer.

i have been so, so, so, so clear, over and over again, that i do not care who wants to use the word queer for themselves. i'm not sure how much clearer i can be on the subject and i don't see a point in trying to explain anything beyond that when no one will even listen to that much. i am not going to have these discussions with tumblr anons anymore, it is a waste of my time. if anyone is really pressed to know my opinions they are free to talk to me by literally any method other than anonymous tumblr asks.

[spiderfreedom]

unfortunately we cannot ignore the circumstances of our birth

Catherine MacKinnon has this quote, which I've been pondering for a minute:

Much of the current debate has centered on (endlessly obsessed over, actually) whether trans women are women. Honestly, seeing “women” as a turf to be defended, as opposed to a set of imperatives and limitations to be criticized, challenged, changed, or transcended, has been pretty startling. One might think that trans women—assigned male at birth, leaving masculinity behind, drawn to and embracing womanhood for themselves—would be welcomed. 

I don't see "woman" as a "turf" to be defended. It is a word that has been used up until now to refer to a group of human beings that are female, and within feminism it is especially important because it turns out being female has a massive impact on your quality of life. 'female' is a biological descriptor, just like having astigmatism, or hyperflexible joints, or having the DNA of homo sapiens. Were it not for the oppression female humans face, it would be merely a trivia about my own life, only relevant for medical treatment, sexual activity, and reproduction. Instead, medical treatment for my sex is underresearched, and our sexual activity and reproductive capacities are coerced for the pleasure and use of society, among other indignities we suffer. For this reason, many women have banded together under the label of feminism to try to change things for this group that has been so globally and historically oppressed because of our bodies.

Some people are dysphoric about their bodies and try to change them to alleviate their psychological pain. Some people feel very strongly that they identify with a gender role. Some people have explanations of gender that make no sense to me but seem to motivate them very strongly. Some people spend years trying to change how they look to the extent that they are confused for another sex on a daily basis. None of these experiences are inherently harmful. And we can, to an extent, accommodate these people in our language, because these people shouldn't be mocked or denigrated for having unusual gender experiences. But just as I, unfortunately, cannot escape the circumstances of my birth, neither can them. And trans women occupy a particular dynamic in moving from a more powerful social category ("man") to a lower social category ("woman"). MacKinnon believes this is proof of good intentions and so they ought to be welcomed, no further questions.

Let's explore that topic. We'll cover three themes - race, class, and nationality.

race

Should we apply the same flexibility and welcome to Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who left her white identity behind, changed her name, learned to work with Black hair and is now a hairdresser for primarily Black women, who joined the NAACP? A woman who lost everything when her whiteness was outed? Who continues to try to integrate into the Black community? Should she be welcomed as a Black woman, because she passes as Black to some people and because she's part of a Black community and views herself as Black? Does the fact that she has raised Black children make a difference?

Most of us would say no, because the fact of the matter is she has no recent African ancestry in the slightest, and within the US that is the way we define "Black". But some Black people on her instagram think that what she's doing is OK - after all, she's worked so hard to appreciate and be a part of Black culture.

One could make the argument that being Black is not just about having relatively recent African heritage, but about participating in and identifying with Black culture, just as some people argue being a woman is about identifying with norms of womanhood, right? Yet most Black people find Dolezal's actions offensive and her integration irrelevant, because if she wanted to tomorrow, she could always go back to living as a white woman. Whether she wants to or not is irrelevant. Clearly she doesn't want to! But she has the option, always, to return to whiteness, and that is an option denied to Black people.

class

Let's try another example: why do people hate rich people who 'slum' so much? I mean, a rich person can literally lose their money and become poor! Or choose to live in a trailer park, and experience the same shitty amenities the locals experience. Despite this, merely being raised in the upper class, even if you don't have money anymore, or are choosing to live alongside working class people, gets you looked at askance by many (not all). Why... because being born into poverty isn't something you can replicate. Even though there is no question that you can objectively go from having money to not having money, it turns out the circumstances of your birth are, in fact, very relevant!

and if you were raised middle or upper class, you also probably have knowledge about class, finance, networking, etc. that can help you get out of that situation faster than your comrade who weren't raised like that. even if two situations appear to be the same (we both don't have money and live in the same part of town!), the past continues to influence the present.

nationality

Finally, we'll consider nationality, which like transition, also has a legal process that allows you to change which category you are legally viewed as. You can be an American born in the US who gives up your American citizenship to live in Indonesia and become involved in Indonesian politics and fight for the local people. Maybe your former American neighbors will consider you a traitor. American ex-pats may think you're a menace.

But some people in your country will never consider you integrated, because of where you came from. You had the choice to leave your American birth behind, they do not have the choice to leave their birth behind. Once again, you can objectively become an Indonesian citizen as an American, live there for ten years, give up American citizenship, and have internationally recognized Indonesian citizenship. But your birth will always distinguish you from the people born there.

in conclusion

Are these all examples of 'turf defending' or gatekeeping? Are working class people 'gatekeeping' poverty from upper-middle class people who live in a trailer? Are Indonesians 'gatekeeping' being Indonesian from Americans? Are Black people 'gatekeeping' Black culture from Rachel Dolezal? Does it matter that not all people agree within these groups about what the correct gate to keep is? (this will be explored in a future post - groups are not homogenous in who they accept as members)

To return to MacKinnon's question, now that we've looked at comparisons with race, nationality, and poverty (the latter two being things that you can objectively change), do you understand why some people believe that the circumstances of one's birth when moving from a position of more power to a position of less power do remain relevant? Do you understand why people may be suspicious when this happens? Do you understand why some people may welcome you, but still not consider you and them to be the same thing?

Do you understand that this is not an attack on the other person's very 'existence', not a 'turf war', but merely a group that has been oppressed on a specific axis from birth wanting to retain that distinction because it is relevant and important?

Do you recognize that it is possible to change your life, as the American and the rich person did, but also possible to acknowledge the difference between the people you're trying to integrate with and yourself? You are not the enemy, but neither is the oppressed group you are trying to integrate with. Recognizing and navigating this tension is important. Without recognizing and resolving the tension between those of us forced by birth into this class and those who try to enter this class due to dysphoria or identification or psychology, feminism will continue to circle this drain and no progress will be made for either of us.

#mypost #radical feminism #feminism

[squiremaximus]

Five things you like about Walking Dead: World Beyond?

i could 100% give you a full essay but i will try my best to be normal

the portrayal of family. both hope and iris don't seem to have been adopted as a "last resort" which is So common in adoption stories and really is such an ugly thing imo skjnsfjk so i like how there was never any discussion re: infertility or anything, which is so refreshing. felix also being adopted into the family as a teenager was so great to see! because it's not something commonly done in media. the twdu has always been very adamant in its belief that blood isn't what makes a family but there's just something special about it to me personally with the bennetts.

the amount of character development given. being a limited series, a lot could've gone wrong, but the writers accomplished so much in giving complete and detailed arcs to every character in only 20 episodes. they aren't defined by the traits assigned in 1.01; rather quickly, we saw hope and iris stray from the "expected" roles, and the transformations to who they become at the end of the series never feels rushed/undeserved. it's difficult for some shows with 5+ seasons to accomplish the development they got imo, and it's definitely something that needs to be commended.

the differences to twd/fear, which some people see as its "weakness", but i Love how the characters in wb have lived a completely different live; it's those varying experiences that really keep this franchise thriving. one of the biggest complaints when s1 first dropped was the kids being "useless" and i always felt that it was a stupid thing to say because. that is the point? seeing them interact with the world for the first time & following their journey to understand a life beyond the CC was so compelling; seeing who they became was so satisfying. i can get how it's just not for everyone but the people who complained at how "good" they had it while everyone else suffered really missed the point of the story.

felix carlucci. yes, he gets his own point. he is The best character in the entire franchise to me. nico gave us so much with their portrayal and i am so incredibly grateful. twd/fear also have some incredible rep but i loved how felix's story was handled. it just felt so genuine how so much of his character WAS defined by being gay but that's also not ALL there was to him. i think all the time about an interview nico gave where they said during the talks for the role, matt negrete was talking to them about how the only binary that exists is "living and the dead" in twd and how, while felix presents as mostly traditionally masculine & is solely referred to with he/him, his narrative really feels like a trans narrative as well.

the plot. which sounds a little vague but i mean in terms of how twdwb serves to expand the universe further; not just with the deep-dive into the CRM, but the end credit scene of 2.10, which maybe doesn't Directly tie into wb and could've just been randomly put there as a teaser... but i can't help but believe it implies something bigger with the CRM that we don't yet know. with twd ending it's a promise to the bigger things we're going to see and that's something i've been waiting for for a while. i really can't wait to see when the wb characters come back (because they can't not; not with the implication of iris building an army, which i've felt connects to michonne's departure for a while now, and leo continuing the CRM's research) and how they'll play into future shows.

i know it's top five but i also just want to mention how much hope this show has? like i can understand why twd/fear are more Grim and twdwb has more of a hopeful vibe because the primary protagonists are in their coming-of-age era but twdwb in its 2nd season especially really tries So hard to be positive, to show that there is something to fight for, which we see in twd/fear too but! there's just such a hope and promising vibe in the finale and seeing the bennetts thriving doing what they love, iris fighting, hope and leo working together, felix and will being MARRIED... it just made me really emotional the first time i watched it, and thinking about it still Gets Me. there was never any of that awkward series finale vibes that shows tend to get stuck in and that's so rare! but it's a testament to how well-written wb is

#limiting myself to just five was so hard i really tried to play it cool #twdwb #q

[dredshirtroberts]

in reference to this post, which I agree with almost entirely, I just wanted to...touch on the gender identity as it relates to how you are now.

Shale is insinuated to be nonbinary (agender) because of her status as a golem and if she were not a golem she would not be nonbinary. And while generally yeah that's not amazing representation for folks outside of the binary/"norm", I do find it actually pretty...important to me? out of nowhere?

Well, perhaps not out of "nowhere". There's a very specific place this is coming from.

I'm trans of gender. I have come out publicly to family and friends as a man who uses he/him pronouns. Previously I have identified as genderfluid and even before and between those two points I identified as cis.

Gender has always been difficult and thanks to Recent Revelations, now I know why - I've got 10 mushrooms piloting the flesh gundam that is this broken body (that is to say, I believe that my experiences align enough with OSDD-1b/DID diagnostic criteria enough that I would describe myself as part of a system). We're filled with the gender fluids! Take your pick we've got e v e r y t h i n g.

Who knows if we still would have identified collectively as genderfluid, or if we'd have been trans at all without the specific circumstances that causes OSDD-1b/DID. Maybe we would have turned out exactly as mom and dad wanted us: the perfect little christian girl who never stepped out of line. Maybe we would have turned out the same: a queer disaster with two joyfriends who live very far away (currently).

We are who we are, our sexuality and genders are both defined by our existence thanks to great trauma we suffered decades ago. And so stories where it's not based on "born this way" or "chose to become" are very important to me. Because we were neither. We did not choose to be queer, but neither can we be sure we were born like this. We don't know what we could have been.

If we were to all merge into one singular personality within this body, who knows how we might identify. If we were to erase the trauma we have endured who knows what that might look like.

It doesn't matter though. Because what happened happened, and we don't want to become one singular person because we work best as a team but not a unit. And Shale cannot be returned to her initial form. And our genders are still valid.

I don't like the push back against poor representation - there are going to be people upset with every representation that gets shown. We know this from seeing fandoms which were once the pinnacle of representation getting thrown under the bus simply because time has passed and there's more out there now. But people are represented by imperfect/flawed representation. Because people are many and varied and we contain multitudes within us - some more literally than others, admittedly. We are flawed. And so are our stories.

Let us have our representation too, as more and more 'good' representation is visible to the wider public.

#whelp that still was too long #but it's about half the length it would have been if i'd have kept to the original train of thought i had and then deleted #becuase it wasn't what i'd really wanted to say #and this is...closer #the original post was very good and i very much agree with it #i just also don't like labeling representation that isn't actively attacking anyone as 'bad' #there is no bad representation - what you're thinking of is mocking #'bad' representation is just representation for someone who you don't personally identify with despite sharing label names with you #maybe you don't identify exactly the same way your 'representation' in a show does #but that doesn't make it bad #it doesn't make it unhelpful #bioware is...hamfisted about queer rep and it's a flaw #frankly their treatment of native/indigenous treatments has been far more abhorrent #frankly their queer rep is actually pretty good considering what it's up against #is it perfect? no #but will it help? maybe #and that's about all we can hope for right now #as time passes things will look less and less 'good' as far as representation goes in old media #but it was important at the time #and still is for those who connect with the representation as it was in the original

[fictofaggot]

Hi! im assuming you're trying to learn as well, so here a trans man in your inbox re:transmisandry. it's Actually A Real Thing, people just hate the words we use and that's a big part of it. One of the biggest issue trans men face is our invisibility and non-trans people don't Get that, this also includes debating whether or not we Should use the words we use and if we even suffer from oppression at all. They don't want us to have words to define our struggles, just like when they didn't want ace or nonbinary people to not have theirs, because it's not real enough/we're privileged/etc.

People often forget that our "trans" comes before our "men" BUT that we suffer from transphobia SPECIFICALLY because we're men because if we weren't men we wouldn't be trans, duh! Also we aren't in the same space of power as cis men because no matter how well we pass, we're always one slip up alway from losing our "man" status so you REALLY can't say we're at the same level or privileged for Becoming Men. We aren't part of the oppressors and we don't benefit from the system as much as people think we do. The moment we decide to transition we Lose whatever "privileges" we had from our agab and we never quite gain full access to the perks of the other binary one.

Surprisingly enough, we also suffer from misogyny (although people ignore that we do) because society mostly thinks we're just Women Who Are Wrong, but we accept that we can't really use the term transmisogyny for ourselves. So we can't use that one. So what can we use to talk about our own specific struggles then? We need our words, even if people don't like them. There's too many people speaking for us. Listen to US (trans men) when we say we suffer, not to Other people with Opinions.

I don't mean any ill intent with this btw, just that you seen like a nice person who reblogged some misinformation. That's all.

just putting it out there that i am a trans man. so. i don't really need to be treated as what you say is "Other people with Opinions", cause this comes from like, my own experience

i don't claim to think that trans men don't experience specific types of transphobia at all. clearly they do, and it would be more than a little stupid to claim otherwise.

most of the issue i have is just... the word itself. again, transmisogyny as a term describes an intersection between two types of oppression, misogyny and transphobia. transmisandry, on the other hand, says that there's an intersection between transphobia and... misandry. which is widely agreed to be something that does not exist? as far as i'm aware?

and so if something does not exist, how can there be an intersection with it? i struggle to understand the reasoning.

the fact that i dislike the term as it is does not mean i think trans men are "privileged for Becoming Men". i don't think that at all. you do not suddenly become an oppressor once you transition into manhood... that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. trans men are still oppressed on the basis of being trans. trans men still face specific forms of oppression. just... maybe it's not best described as transphobia interacting with something that isn't real, once again.

i really think you should've just read the post you claim is misinformation.. it explains basically the same thoughts i have? like, even down to the example of the term misogynoir not having a white woman counterpart. it's the same concept in my mind.

but, all in all, i don't really care. love and light and peace on earth. i love trans people

#discourse #<- for blacklisting purposes iguess #ilike how it was just immediately assumed iwasnr a trans man just because idont like the term lol

[man-squared]

The separation of the identity of man or masculine from other identities doesn't sit right with me. I can't speak for many men on this issue because I am a white, non-indigenous, abled bodied (and many more that I cannot think of at the moment) man.

However, I can speak about the intersection of trans and man. Disclaimer: I do not speak for all trans men, of course.

I've seen many people say the men are not oppressed, which surface level, yes. Yet, when people rightfully bring up men of color, trans men, and other oppressed men, the former group likes to push the idea that those men are not oppressed because they are men, but because of their other identities.

But what people who separate our identities don't seem to understand when it comes to us, is that our identity as men also plays onto our oppression.

This is not to say that women are not "oppressed as bad" or that they should "shut up because we are all hurting." Fuck, no. Keep fighting and talking about how you are hurt and how you ache. We will be here to support you.

But we are also oppressed in different ways (sometimes similar but not exactly the same overall) because we are men.

In my case, my transness is defined by my experiences as a trans man and how people see me as a trans man (whether or not they believe that is who I am). When seen as a trans man, I am seen as not a man, less a man, a special type of man, a confused girl, etc etc. My existence is threatening, not just as a trans person, but as a trans man. I disrupt the status quo with my need for language to cover me so legally I can be safe and obtain the healthcare I need without fear of being chased away, disregarded, discriminated against, etc. And if I passed more, I would not be easily let into spaces I need to be to have the healthcare and services I need.

I would love for open discussion on this from more people. From men, women, people who are both or neither. Just don't shit on other people's experiences or demonize each other, okay?

There's definitely more I want to say, but I can't gather my thoughts at the moment. Ultimately, I see all of our suffering as unnecessary and we should all be fighting to end everyone's.

#men #masculine #man² #long