#WAY MORE OF A MINORITY THAN CISHET WOMEN | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fozmeadows · 5 months

Note

As someone who hasn't read the works of radical feminists like Simone de Beauvoir, could you explain what's wrong and what bothers you about biological essentialism? I'm curious about your opinion after reading your post on radfems (and I'd like a perspective that isn't so based on biological gender essentialism, which I honestly have a hard time moving away from because I don't understand other perspectives well). 👀

The problem with biological essentialism is that purports to answer the eternally unanswered question of nature vs nurture in a wholly one-dimensional way - ie, with biological sex as The Single Most Important Aspect Of Personhood, regardless of any other considerations - while simultaneously ignoring the fact that biological sex is not, in fact, a binary proposition. We've learned in recent decades, for instance, that intersex conditions are much more common and wide-ranging than previously thought, not because scientists have arbitrarily changed the definitions of what counts as an intersex condition, but because our understanding of hormones, chromosomes, karyotpying and other physical permutations has expanded sufficiently to merit the shift. So right away, the idea that humanity is composed of Biological Men and Biological Women with absolutely no ambiguities, overlap or middle ground simply isn't true. Inevitably, though, if you mention this, people with a vested interest in biological essentialism become immediately defensive. They'll start saying things like, oh, but that's only a tiny minority of the population, they're outliers, they don't count, as though their argument doesn't derive its claim to authority from a presumed universality. To use a well-worn example, redheads are also a tiny minority of the population, but that doesn't mean we exclude them when talking about the range of natural human hair colours. But the fact is, even if humans lacked chromosomal diversity beyond XX/XY; even if there were no cases of cis men with internal ovaries or cis women with internal testes or people with ambiguous genitalia - and let's be clear: all of these things exist - the fact is, our individual hormones are in flux throughout our lives.

There are standard ranges for estrogen and testosterone in men and women (which, again, vary according to age and some other factors), but two cis men of the same age and background could still have completely different T-counts, for instance - meaning, even the supposed universal gender factor isn't universal at all. More, while our hormones certainly play a major role in our moods and cognition, so do a ton of other genetic and bodily factors that have nothing to do with the sex we're assigned at birth - and on top of that, there's nurture: the cultural contexts in which we're raised, plus our more individual experiences of living in the world. One of the most common, everyday (and yet completely bullshit) permutations of biological essentialism comes when parents or would-be parents talk about their reasons for wanting a son or a daughter. Very often, there's a strong play to stereotypical assumptions about shared interests and personalities: I want a son to play football with me, for instance, or: I want a daughter to be my shopping buddy. But even within the most mainstream channels of cishet culture, it's understood that these hopes are not, in fact, grounded in any sort of biological certainty. The dad who wants a sporty son might be just as likely to end up with a bookworm, while the mother who wants a little princess might find herself with a tomboy. We know this, and our stories know this! For the entirety of human history - for as long as we've been writing about ourselves - we have records of parental disappointment in the failure of this child or that to embody what's expected of them, gender-wise. More than that: if biological essentialism was real - if men were only and ever One Type Of Man, and women were only and ever One Type Of Woman, with recent progressive moments the sole anonymous blip in an otherwise uniform historical standard - then why is there so much disparity and disagreement throughout human history as to what those roles are? The general conception of women espoused in medieval France is thoroughly different to that espoused in pre-colonial Malawi, for instance, and yet we're meant to believe that there's some innate Gender Template guiding all human beings to behave in accordance with a set, immutable biological binary? And that's before you factor in the broad and fascinating history of trans and nonbinary people throughout history - because despite what TERFs and conservative alarmists have to say on the matter, our records of trans people, and of societies in which various trans and nonbinary identities were widely understood (if not always accepted), are ancient. We know about trans priestesses from thousands of years before Christ; the Talmud has terms describing eight different genders, and those are just two examples. All over the world, all throughout history, different cultures have developed radically different concepts of femininity and masculinity, to say nothing of designations outside of, overlapping with or in between those categories - socially, legally, behaviourally, sexually - and yet we're meant to believe that biology is at all times nudging us towards a set, ideal gender template? There's a lot more I could say, but ultimately, the point is this: people are different. While some aspects of our personhood are inevitably influenced by genetics, hormones, chromosomes and other biological factors, we're also creatures of culture and change and interpersonal experience. The idea that men and women are fundamentally different, even diametrically opposed, at a biological level - that the major separator in terms of our personalities and interests isn't culture, upbringing and personal taste, but what's between our legs - is just... so reductive, and so inaccurate.

We can absolutely have common experiences on the basis of a shared gender, but gender is not the only possible axis of commonality between two people, let alone the most salient one at all times, and the idea that we're all born on one side of an immutable biological equation that cannot possibly be transcended makes me feel insane. According to modern biological essentialism, intersex, trans and nonbinary people are either monstrous, mistakes or imaginary; all men are fundamentally predisposed to violence, all women are designed for motherhood, and we're meant to just hew to our designated places - which, conveniently, tend to echo a very specific form of Christian ideology, but which in any case manifestly fail to account for how variedly gender has been presented throughout history. It's nuts.

#foz answers things #gender #feminism #biological essentialism #history #sociology

297 notes · View notes

punkeropercyjackson · 3 months

Text

Related to my prev post:

I don't give two shits if Bruce is written like a bad dad if it means we get good writing for everybody else since i think minorities are more important than a white cishet male nepotism baby unlike his butch lesbian counterpart who's judaism is an actual fundamental part of her character and since he's been written as abusive so consistently over the years it's in-character anyway

Dick can be both bi/pan and demisexual and there's more evidence for the latter than the former so making him be sexually loose is aspec erasure and mspec stereotyping and he dosen't have a thing for redheads,he has a thing for black women and to me the only guy he seems to like romantically is Roy and that adds on to his demisexuality since they're childhood best friends

'Catholic guilt Jason' is a shit headcanon that misses the major and critical part of him being Red Hood that he didn't feel the slightest bit bad about killing people and the point of his redemption was learning remorse,afrolatino Jason isn't based on stereotyping but him filling out so many black and latino cultural aspects and if any hcs for him are stereotyping it's the one that he's a slut because he's a very handsome and hot and cute goth punk man

Tim is perfect the way he is and dosen't need power ups or to get 'punished' for the oh so horrible crime of being a realistic teenage boy,he's not JUST huge a loser or a super cool dude but both at once and it's bad writing and fetishistic to ignore his wide range of relathionships that consists of mostly of women to make him a 'guys guy'

Stephanie is heavily autistic and bpd-coded so she's far from a 'normie',much less an 'it girl' but people see blonde hair and blue eyes and throw away everything else about her because that's all she's worth to them or call her an abuser and a pick me just like they do irl bpdtistic women and she's also canonically pastel/indie punk and a Team Mom but gets her presentation switched to basic and made out to be a womanchild instead

Cass had a million times more moral conflict than Jason ever did,would never in her LIFE wanna be feminine even in the chinese way and would be butch in it instead,turning her scattered speech into sign language is ableist not unlike(but not on the same level as)changing Babs' type of wheelchair disability and she'd be a better Batman than any male character in existense

Duke is only a golden child in the sense he has a yellow motif and is as disruptive and authentically quirky as his siblings,We Are Robin is a better team than the canon Outlaws,his powers are cooler than any Al-Ghul ones you could come up with,he has more femme energy than Tim does and Carrie Kelley ain't shit and only gets brought back to replace him because DC is antiblack

Damian's introduction mentality was a result of not only child abuse but also psychological grooming to get him to dehumanize himself and all his bigoted comments are explained either by him being like 12 or his writers trying to demonize brown people and anybody who thinks he's a bad person is a super-sized pissbaby with no sympathy for kids of color,shipping him with Jon is making a bisexual man into a ped0phile and Jay is good even if aging Jon up wasn't and he should be friends with Maya,Suren,Nell,Colin,Kathy,Maps,Tai and Miles,Gwen,Peni,Pavitr,Hobie and Margo from Atsv and Nico and Hazel from Pjo instead of Billy Batson or Danny Fenton or ANY Mcu characters

Talia is super hot but should be drawn in accurate arab clothes instead 'sexy assasian gear'(not that these two can't co-exist but you get what i mean),her personality is extremely rich and her stories are mega interesting,she's a good mom to Damian and literally never 'took advantage of Jason' seeing as That Scene In Lost Days was decanonized by it's writer who said it was ooc for her on his part,she should've been a mom figure to Stephanie in her Robin Days too since they would get along and she deserved her own run where she takes over Lexcorp to transform it into a force for good and become Superfam-adjacent to free herself from having only male connections

78 notes · View notes

our-mlm-experience · 2 months

Note

I dunno if others feel this way, but as a bi dude I feel really uncomfortable in a lot of bi spaces because so many seem to be filled with bi women who make those “unfortunately I like men” sorta jokes/comments, so it ends up feeling I can only exist as a safe man but can’t really express a lot of my experiences about liking men, or biphobia/homophobia from anyone other than cishet men, or just being a man in general. I don’t even feel safe talking about being sexually assaulted by another man because so many people go into “not all men but always a man” sort of thinking (even though many stats show men are primarily victimized by women so it’s not even accurate, not that it’d feel better to be told that even if it was more accurate)

I know I’m probably in the minority for this, but I got feel that I tend to get treated better by a lot of the sort of the dude bro types of guys in my life than a lot of the progressive queer people I know. Granted about half of them ended up being queer bros, but even this cishet ones I feel less guarded around. I feel like I’m just a person who happens to like more than one gender, while around a lot of my more progressive queer friends I feel like I’m constantly getting filtered through these lenses and not treated like a person. I also keep getting the whole “you’re one of the good ones” from them which sorta just adds another reason for why I feel like I can’t really talk about some of the mistreatment I’ve gotten from women the way they talk to me about how they’ve been mistreated by men.

Idk just feeling very gay best friended in a not great way lately

🫂

#our mlm experience #gay #mlm #mlm asks #bisexual

49 notes · View notes

xxlovelynovaxx · 2 months

Text

I feel like there's two things that get lost in the weeds a lot when discussing gendered oppression of marginalized men, specifically in how "there's no such thing as systemic misandry!" gets tossed out by transandrophobes and people discussing transmasc oppression alike.

And those are:

1. Something can be systemic and harmful and still not be oppressive. Toxic masculinity is just patriarchal misandry. Just because (white, abled, cishet, etc) men who conform to it benefit from it and are privileged, doesn't make it not gendered harm and bigotry against men specifically.

2. People get so caught up in the idea that there has to be a clear OPPRESSOR group which benefits from oppression for oppression to exist at all. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that (white, abled, cishet, etc) men DON'T benefit from oppression of women and gender minorities. But people forget the concept of hegemonical oppression - that rather than a specific group oppressing, a system like patriarchy can be responsible for oppression.

And I think under that understanding of oppression, patriarchal misandry could be considered a form of oppression itself, with room for the nuance and complexity of the fact that the harm it does scales inversely to how much privilege a man is able to access by conforming to said hegemony.

Like, we learned that patriarchal expectations of masculinity harm men too in feminism 101. I am a firm believer in the idea that ALL violence is gendered - that intersectionality means it has to be, and that it's NOT just Violence:Woman Edition, Violence:Nonbinary Edition, and Violence:Basic Edition. ALL identities matter when looking at oppression through an intersectional lens, particularly when talking about the idea that other marginalizations affect your ability to conform to patriarchal hegemony and access male privilege!

Oppression isn't a zero sum game. People who are oppressed can also be oppressors. There are systems under which everyone is oppressed in some way and only the degree of oppression significantly affects class dynamics. Hell, just about every oppressive system ends up harming the people who benefit from it, at least in small ways, and sometimes in large ways dependent on their other marginalizations.

Impoverished abled people are affected by ableism to the point they could be considered oppressed by it, because aspects of ableism and classism are identical and interchangeable. Perisex trans people are affected by intersexism, because intersexism, transphobia, anti-gender-nonconformity/patriarchal gender roles, and sexism are all one big blended mess.

Basically, oppression, while related to ontological identity, is so highly dependent on ability to conform to hegemonical standards; which itself is highly dependent on ability to conform to ALL hegemonical standards/kyriarchical standards. One can be partially or even fully denied access to privilege, to acceptance as a member of the oppressor class and therefore the ability to benefit from said oppression - all on the basis of inability to conform to a different standard of systemic hierarchical power.

This affects different intersections of identities to varying degrees. In some cases, it may not be possible to be fully denied access to privilege or membership within an oppressor class on the basis of other marginalization. Identities which have a more physical or material root seem to be affected in an entirely different way than identities that are strongly subjective and internal. Identities like race, disability, sex (particularly intersexness) and so on, seem to be more self-similar in this regard than they are to identities like neurodivergence and plurality, gender, and ethnicity, despite the significant overlap between multiple of those categories.

Some forms of oppression that involve multiple of these identities - transphobia, neuroableism/sanism (against both primarily mental and primarily physical neurological disabilities), and so on, also sit more squarely in the middle of the two groups.

It is also worth noting that oppression of identities that have corresponding physical/material aspects is still highly social in nature, and based in social categorization of arbitrary physical features.

More to the point, though, gendered oppression seems to be uniquely ubiquitous under patriarchy. Men do face unique violence for being men - for the nuance haters, this doesn't mean that it's worse violence, that women oppress men, or any of that other garbage. Some of the violence men face is still universal violence that all people face. Some of it is universal, but manifests in unique ways dependent on gender - for example, the emotions considered acceptable to display openly based on gender, as there is no gender for which openly displaying all emotions is considered acceptable.

Some violence is also unique to men - either to (nearly)* all men, or to specific subgroups of marginalized men.

*There are exceptions to this, of course: the people who are able to achieve complete or near-complete conformity to hegemonical standards, and billionaires (as class is heavily weighted in determining conformity to hegemony, particularly in a capitalist society). These exceptions are often used to claim that no one in a group ever experiences oppression on the basis of the specific identity the exceptions gain power through.

Nondisabled neurodivergent and plural people, for example, are treated as though if they don't face ableism, they aren't oppressed for their neurotype. Trans men, men of color, disabled men, and other marginalized men are told they "only" face transphobia, racism, ableism, etc, in a way that is entirely nongendered and lesser/easier than what trans women, women of color, disabled women, and other women face.

The fact that manhood is treated as more of a contributing factor to whether someone is a member of an oppressor class (and therefore, not oppressed on the basis of that identity) than stuff like class or race to me is the biggest indicator that that analysis is faulty. A nonbinary billionaire has significant power over impoverished binary cis people. White women oppress men of color. While oppression is complicated, some intersections are relatively simple, and any analysis which ignores the material reality of oppression in these situations is flawed.

Maybe it's the way that victimhood is treated as both passive and virtuous and victims as therefore above criticism for any behavior, while oppression is treated as synonymous with aggression/being an active and enthusiastic perpetrator of violence and therefore ontologically evil. Maybe it's the dehumanization and objectification (non-sexual, for those who don't know it can be used outside of that context) of oppressors and aggressors. Maybe it's simply the aggressively binary and cis lens of rad/ical feminism that is so deeply ingrained in modern gender theory.

But people seem deeply reluctant to analyze the fact that people with identities they've deemed inherently oppressive and therefore evil can be oppressed, sometimes on the basis of the very identity considered inherently oppressive. Gender in particular is one that people refuse to approach with nuance, despite that it is itself multifaceted and heavily interrelated with and inextricable from other identities.

Transness, distance from or adjacency to the gender binary, masculinity and femininity and gender conformity vs nonconformity, sex conformity, conformity/nonconformity to the sex dyad - both via medical means in either direction and via perisex/intersex identity, type of transition, ability to fulfill gendered expectations and roles on the basis of other identities such as cultural, abled/disabled, subcultural, attractional, and other identities... these are all aspects of gender identity. Oppression on the basis of any one of these can mean that you are oppressed for your gender as a whole - intersex people's genders, for example, are both heavily policed and tokenized for our being intersex, even for intersex people who are cis and binary.

One aspect of gender identity - even one that is sometimes separate from internal identity, such as presentation, not conforming to hegemonical expectations can be enough to not just completely bar access to the oppressor class on the basis of gender, but to itself cause the ENTIRE gender identity to become marginalized and the people of that identity to face oppression for it.

Trans men, gender nonconforming men, intersex men, altersex men and cis men who take HRT and/or pursue surgeries that align their body with perisex female standards (for lack of better phrasing), butch and femme men, queer men, disabled men, men of color... all can be specifically oppressed for their marginalized manhood, because the marginalization of their manhood comes from an inability to conform to hegemonical standards of manhood.

So, is it really even true to say "systemic misandry doesn't exist"? Patriarchal masculinity is systemic, harms men, and marginalizes any manhood specifically that does not conform. Its oppression of marginalized men isn't a side effect or collateral damage, but rather a feature of the system itself. By so aggressively gatekeeping conformity to hegemonical masculinity and the benefits that it grants, the patriarchy reifies itself and encourages its own perpetuation.

Is systemic misandry real? Is the idea that men can be oppressed specifically for their manhood on the basis of not being able to conform to an arbitrary standard of manhood a useful lens for analysis? Does the concept of systemic misandry further our analysis of how the patriarchy works and how best to dismantle it?

I believe so. At least, I believe more so than "if you acknowledge that men are hurt by the patriarchy you're an MRA incel!!1" It's almost as if gender dynamics under patriarchy are extremely complex and nuanced and oppression isn't simply "evil cackling villain enjoying squashing innocent victims' hopes and dreams", because oppression is based in access to hierarchical power which itself is EXTREMELY heavily dependent on ability to conform to the standards of whoever and whatever systems hold power!

Additional note: If you actually want to have a conversation about this, I'm open to talking. If you just want to tell me I'm wrong or somehow bigoted because you disagree with my analysis, lob ad hominem attacks my way, or simply maliciously misread this post and respond to things I never said, do us both a favor, don't waste both our time, and block me. I have less than zero energy to deal with bullshit right now.

#transandrophobia #transmisandry #intersexism #transphobia #gender #gender analysis

20 notes · View notes

golvio · 7 months

Text

Like…they could’ve at least made the design choice interesting by having the line where Ganondorf mocked Rauru for trying to control him make reference to Ganondorf’s own objectification by the Hyrulean court and the audience. Like, “This is what you get for treating me like some exotic little plaything!”

Part of the subversive nature of the “femme fatale” archetype comes from subverting the expectation that pretty women are merely sexual objects passively waiting to be consumed by the cishet male protagonist/the presumed cishet male audience the lingering, voyeuristic shots of her body are constructed for their titillation.

Having a “Gone Girl” style dramatic reveal of interiority (as a human being, beyond simplistic moral notions of the perfect-yet-eternally-sidelined-and-undeveloped-in-favor-of-the-more-privileged-protagonist Minority Best Friend or the violent savage), awareness of and manipulation of racist/imperialist expectations, and an methodical and calculated revenge born of repressed rage at that oppression would’ve given a fascinating new dimension to Ganon’s character that’s usually applied to fictional women, as there’s this implicit assumption that men can’t be objectified, or if they are they can’t be harmed by it the way women can.

His desire for absolute power, absolute autonomy, could’ve been born from being treated like a plaything of people more powerful than him, making him determined to never be a victim or an object again, and launching a psychological warfare campaign against the people who’d dare treat him that way. It would’ve fit how manipulative and spiteful the version of him in TotK is written as, as well as giving him an actually impressive and coherent plan to work with to show off his more coldly patient, perceptive, tactical, and clever side in contrast to the open, overt rage of Calamity Ganon.

#racism mention tw #loz thoughts #ganondorf

43 notes · View notes

peach-princess-snz · 27 days

Text

🍑✨ Welcome to my blog ✨🍑

★ I go by Peach (she/her)

★ Gen/shin snzfics:

Bai/zhu: Part 1 Part 2 (I swear I have more ideas for fics, but for now I'll leave these two little offerings here)

★ Do not hesitate to reach out with questions, requests, or just to talk. I enjoy making friends in the community.

★ I do not do roleplays, record myself, or join any *spicy* chats because I'm married (to a vanilla who somehow supports my weird little obsession and is chill with me being here)

--------------------

▷ likes: allergies, inducing somebody, caretaking, m/m, whump, light bdsm, characters having the fetish

▷ dislikes: contagion, emeto, mess (beyond spray) - I have nothing against the above, it's just my personal preference.

--------------------

︴Please DNI if you're are prejudiced against people based on their gender, sexuality, race, national origin, age, disability, religion, etc.

︴Please DNI if you are a minor.

This space is dedicated to a sexual fetish, and it will be safer for everyone if there are no interactions between minors and adults.

✨ This page does not support discrimination (including against men)✨

I feel like this topic is rarely discussed (overall, not even talking about snzblr), so I had to make my position clear. Look, I've been hurt by men before. And I've been hurt by many people, unrelated to their gender or sexuality, because anybody has the capacity to be cruel. When we rationalize misandry with fear, we justify discrimination in a broad sense as fear and misunderstanding is at its core. Fear of the strong, the weird, the different, the "not like us". Cishet men did not choose to be born this way, nor did they choose to be born in a society with a long history of patriarchy and the ugly things it did and continues to justify. Labeling all men as villains because some of them did awful things is no better than labeling all immigrants as unqualified, or all women as inferior, or all snz fetishists as pervs. And I'd know because I check all three boxes.

#snz fucker #snz kink #snzblr

11 notes · View notes

cock-holliday · 10 months

Note

Re: this post about how radical feminism is still promoted in otherwise "progressive" circles https://www.tumblr.com/cock-holliday/723838078083563520/its-true-terves-are-a-vocal-minority-but-what?source=share

I just had the displeasure of seeing this cross my dash.

Like. It's almost like people think that queer men are incapable of having any depth to their gender at all or even of having any understanding of gender at all. And as a system who has transmasc headmates, I know for a fact that their genders are very deep and nuanced. They're delightful people really, one's a beekeeper actually. But the point is, shit like this is extremely infantilizing. I already had more than enough of cishets saying I don't know what my own gender, I don't need other queer people saying it too.

Yeah, it’s a hot mess. “Nonbinary” to many people means white thin feminine AFAB, but sooo conditionally.

If you’re AMAB you *might* get accepted if you are feminine enough, but being thin and white also helps. Too feminine and you’re “basically a trans woman” and get erased. Feminine in the wrong way and you’re apparently mocking trans women with your existence.

It’s also weird that the “acceptance” of feminine AFABs gets taken to mean that AFAB nbies are accepted wholesale because if they lean into femininity too hard in the “wrong way” and are like femboys then they get torn to shreds for it too. They’re “fakers” or “fetishizing” or “mocking trans men.” Then you’ve got masc transmasc AFABs and they get erased for being “basically” trans men, and if they try to access “women and nb spaces” then they’re predatory men.

Not to mention GNC and cis folks dicking around with gender are often either seen as fakers or in denial, especially when AMAB. Poor F1nnster got treated as an egg cause he couldn’t possibly be GNC or just having fun. Then when he realized there IS something not-cis about his experimentation he gets shit for not “committing” to being a trans woman like that’s his only option.

God forbid you be a masculine AMAB enby then you’re just “being predatory.” People really pull the “cishet man in a dress to get access to women’s spaces” at AMAB enbies like that’s not word for word a weapon against trans women.

You have to be girl-adjacent enough to be nonthreatening, and then your acceptance is conditional on accepting infantilization—you cannot possibly speak out about anything because you don’t know what’s good for you. Be too boy-adjacent and you are a predator. “Masc” and “femme” becomes synonymous with man and woman, but if you do it in a very GNC way then you are in the crosshairs again. Transmasc femboys are the wrong kind of feminine to people, transfemme butches are not being GNC in the “right” way.

Rigidly binary cis AND trans folks are supremely not normal about NBies and GNC folks and end up being as infantilizing and demonizing as any other anti-transmasc and anti-transfemme transphobes out there.

#ask #nimoma-antifa

52 notes · View notes

transunity · 1 year

Text

Cropped OOPs username out because I don't want any hate sent their way. But this is an example of what is meant by "some trans women turn their oppression into a competition, which is unhelpful and harmful to other LGBTQ+ minorities".

Aphobia is systemic and impact on relations of power is not the only deciding factor on what is systemic. When powerful institutions like the church do not recognise asexuality because it does not (necessarily) lead to procreation, that is part of a larger arm of systemic control over LGBTQ+ people. Homophobia, Transphobia and Aphobia are all arms of the same mechanism that seeks to uphold and protect societal control over reproduction. Those who deviate from the cishet model are seen as a problem and thus are targeted systematically. This includes those on the A Spectrum.

But more to the point: we need better solidarity between all kinds of queer folk facing queerphobia. OOP's take is antithetical to solidarity and unity. But its not an uncommon opinion to see bandied about. This is just one example of it. Creating an oppression Olympics where Transmisogyny is the only oppression that matters alienates other LGBTQ+ minorities. Aphobia is just as important to fight as transmisogyny. If OOP had compared other oppresions, the flaws would be immediately apparent. E.g. if they suggested homophobia was more important to fight than lesbophobia, that would be unacceptable- because surely both deserve to be fought?

This blog exists to promote unity between those experiencing the three arms of transphobia mainly. Transmisogyny is one of three kinds of transphobia. It isn't the *only* kind of transphobia nor is it the only kind of queer oppression.

To those who work with transmisogyny theory- be mindful of this. If you are actively minimising other people's oppression in order to make yours seem the most dire. Who are you hurting by doing that? And is it actually helping your cause or just alienating others?

Can you commit to including other trans perspectives in your work to fight transphobia?

#Transandrophobia #Transmisogyny #Ceterophobia

76 notes · View notes

genderkoolaid · 2 years

Note

A friend sent me a piece* today that had an interesting counter-analysis of the harassment dynamic described in Just One of the Guys? Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality:

Schlit theorizes that cishet men are less inquisitive about their trans male coworkers because they think taking interest in another man’s body will make them seem “gay.” Women and gay men are more socially permitted to take an interest in men’s bodies though, she says.

This was the response in the piece my friend sent, the author of which is a gay trans man:

Gay men are expected to reign in all signs of our sexualities at work, to a far greater degree than straight people are. The idea that it’s socially acceptable for a gay man to ask a male coworker about his genitals or sex life is absurd.

On the whole, the cis het men in my life have been quick to act like my transition isn’t a big deal. They always address me appropriately, and don’t make a fuss when encountering me in the bathroom. A cis male coworker advocated for me beautifully when I was newly transitioning at my job, treading a careful line between always using gender neutral language for me but never outing me before I was ready. The most awkward thing a cishet man has ever done in response to my transition was give me the nickname “Dev” — then immediately cringe at himself for it, which I found quite endearing.

Cis female coworkers, on the flip side, tend to radiate a ton of attention and curiosity my way the moment they find out that I’m trans. They ask inappropriate questions about my body or where I plan for my transition to “go” next (surgery wise). They comment on my hair, clothes, and changing cup size. They size me up from head to toe and ask me how the transition is “feeling” with a conspiratorial grin, as if they’ve been let in on some alluring secret. And they are far more likely to verbally and socially group me with women, even if they say that they are supportive.

So my experiences track with the patterns in Schlit’s data, even though I disagree with her interpretation. I don’t think straight men are more respectful to me because they’re afraid of seeming “gay.” If anything, cishet men have become more warm and affectionate to me now that I’m visibly a guy. They feel more relaxed around me because they genuinely see me as one of them. It’s cis women (and sometimes gay men) who are on edge in my presence.

Workplace sexual harassment isn’t really about sexual desire, not any more than sexist catcalling is caused by finding a woman walking down the street hot. Instead, it all comes down to power: who has it, who craves it, and who feels insecure about their relationship to it and chooses to lash out.

Generally speaking, groups with unrivaled power don’t have to use social aggression to protect themselves. The popular kids in school are not the ones who bully, for example; it’s the kids who are in the awkward, insecure middle tier between popular and unpopular who do that.

In secure-feeling workplaces, there is less bullying as well. It’s only when the unemployment rate rises and workplace turnover increases that things like racist workplace harassment go up precipitously. Usually the ones leveraging it are the white people whose positions are on the chopping block. Aggression signals a position that’s in need of defending.

Cishet men are in a very secure position in most institutions. Many of them feel no need to maintain their place in the pecking order by socially aggressing against others. Women and gay men, on the other hand, are in a more perilous position. They have some institutional power, but it’s conditional on them being a ‘respectable’ member of their group. So when another gender minority upends the status quo by transitioning, I believe many women and some gay men feel a need to put him in his place using the very same sexual and gender-based harassment they have regularly endured.

I would quibble a bit on that last paragraph -- I do think cishet men use aggression in the workdplace despite being in secure positions, but I think it has different drivers (e.g. being able to use the security of their position to bully, rather than their aggression being driven by precarity). But overall I think it's a really good point!

*CN for sexual harassment, misgendering, general transphobic fuckery

!!! Thank you for sharing this!

I think that's a really good analysis of the "hostile cis women" phenomenon. People who feel threatened try to take control over whatever they are able, and when you have privilege over someone else and hold ingrained biases against them, they are a very easy target.

Big TW for the article having a lot of descriptions of incidents of harassment and transphobic violence, but I also think it's very good to read those accounts if you are able. It doesn't just focus on trans men's experiences but trans people's as a whole. I think I'm gonna post some more quotes from this article on their own because WOW he really hit hard w some of these.

This whole article is enlightening imo, and I really respect the author for keeping a compassionate viewpoint when analyzing cis women's transphobia and homophobia. Because it's not always easy, but it's important to keep in mind that people rarely ever do things simply because they are assholes; more often, they are assholes because they are suffering. That's not an excuse, but it's not irrelevant, either.

#m.#ask box #transandrophobia #antimasculism #transmisogyny #for a second i thought this ask went to the void i was gonna start eating glass

144 notes · View notes

cardentist · 1 year

Text

Context: [Link] (highly recommend reading even if it’s long) I debated where I should put this, but with the length of this post I want to put @nothorses master post about transandrophobia right at the top [Link] if this post is too lengthy for you or you'd like to read more after chewing on this then I Implore you to open that link and hold onto it.

I don't want to call out this person in particular, I'm certain they don't mean any harm by it and it's not within our best interests to pick fights with people who have (in this commenter's words) Nearly all of the same beliefs with some minor squabbles who are willing to support each other anyways.

but it's exactly Because I'm certain this person means well that frustrates me.

years ago I would've said something along the lines of "this is no different from saying 'I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of gay people.'" that it's nitpicking Accurate terminology by breaking it into pieces and judging the words its made up of individually when they're obviously intended to be seen as a whole. trans Men face oppression for being trans Men in a way that cis men do not, just like trans Women face oppression for being trans Women in a way that cis women do not.

but that was a long time ago, the perspective has changed.

"trans men can't have this term because it's too close to affirming cishet white men when they say that they're oppressed for being men" was a talking point back when "transmisandry" was the terminology that was landed on. and while my thought process about that was the same I Understood the kneejerk reaction. because there Was a concerted effort by certain cishet weirdos to make "misandry" a term that made them systematically oppressed by women, and more specifically was used to Deny the existence of misogyny (very ironically from how they acted).

(that said, I have my own reasons for liking that term even if I do see the problems with it, I understand why it was chosen at the time. which I get into here [Link])

"transandrophobia" was coined Specifically to avoid that connotation, to Denounce the association and address that frankly (on the surface) Reasonable kneejerk reaction while still being recognizable and serving the same purpose.

but the talking point about it remained Exactly The Same, completely unchanged despite the change in association. because the point was never About it evoking something unpleasant (though that certainly helped with swaying bystanders in the conversation) it was about the absolute refusal to believe in the concept of people being hated For their manhood. in masculinity intersecting with oppression More than just as a neutral trait.

now, what I'm Not going to say is that the concept of androphobia is a systemic oppression that's upheld by the majority or any governmental body. not mine and certainly not any that I've heard of. but I will Also say that conflating the Recognition of a sentiment that real people express With systemic oppression is not only unhelpful (there's a lot of things that aren't systemic but still matter) but has Also been used to gate keep minorities by exclusionist groups Plenty of times before.

such as when people stopped being able to insist that asexuals don't experience trauma for being asexual At All and instead insisted that it wasn't Systematic and therefore they didn't belong in the queer community. no amount of studies, no amount of personal accounts, no examining of actual law and actual acts of oppression from governing bodies or places of work would sway them. because as long as they could say "It's Not Systemic" they could dismiss it out of hand. when, really, even if they were right it shouldn't matter. if someone experiences trauma they deserve to have the source of that trauma taken seriously no matter the underlying cause. they shouldn't have to Prove that it's important enough to justify caring about.

but to get to my point 9 paragraphs in from where we started, the idea that anti-masculinity or androphobia or anti-man sentiment or Whatever you want to call it Doesn't Exist is pretty ridiculous coming from within the trans community for Several Reasons.

terfs hate trans women because they're transphobic, but they Also hate trans women because they're radfems. a core tenant of radfem ideology Is The Demonization Of Men And Of Masculinity. they think trans women are dangerous Because They See Them As Men Trying To Infiltrate Women's Spaces. and Yes that is obviously transphobia, but the way they talk about trans women is Not magically disconnected from their view of manhood or masculinity or Men As A Group. though Undoubtedly they will side with cis men if it gives them the opportunity to attack trans women, in part because it Is that intersection of Both anti-man sentiments And transphobia And misogyny that has them frothing at the mouth to hate trans women.

(see this: [Link] for a more in depth discussion on radfem ideology as a whole)

and the thing is, someone might be tempted to say "well their hatred of masculinity is Obviously tied to trans women, so there's no point in acknowledging it as anything But transmisogyny." and in fact, that's not a hypothetical at all, it's the default relationship people have with this concept.

but this mindset affects everyone, Especially otherwise marginalized groups.

radfems seeing men as Inherently And Biologically Violent, as rapists and unthinking monsters, Absolutely And Undeniably affects how they treat people of color (Especially black people). white women stalking black men and calling the cops on them because they see their existence as Dangerous has been a Thing for as long as cops have existed (it's the Reason that cops exist) and has been Documented as a current issue in the wake of black lives matter and the murder of black men by the cops. it is an attempt from white women to have black men murdered, to cause violence to them without having to physically implicate themselves, all while using the perception of themselves as inherent victims (small and docile and innocent) with the perception of black men as monsters.

and it Should go without saying, but this Obviously Is Not Saying that black men inherently have it worse than black women. recognizing the oppression of one demographic within an oppressed group Should Not Inherently Mean pitting them against other demographics within that same group. we should just be allowed to point out an experience that some people can have and let that be a neutral (if important) statement. the things black women go through because of Their intersection of racism and misogyny are well and truly Horrific, I certainly don't need to prove that.

and In Fact, black women are victims of that Same intersection of racism and androphobia that we see both from terfs and from white people everywhere. because "womanhood" Almost Without Question means "White womanhood," to have black traits (or to have Non-White traits) is to be closer to masculinity in the eyes of racists.

when terfs post a picture of a cis woman and harass and mock them for Clearly being a trans woman who will Never fool anybody it's universally because the woman in the picture has traits that aren't traditionally upheld as the standard for white women. it's misogyny, it's androphobia, it's transphobia, it's racism. because these ideas Aren't Inherently Separate. they Build on each other and they affect Everybody, because people who think this way don't just turn it on and off like a switch when they're attacking the "intended" target.

and All of these ideas come together and inform the situation with trans men, both on this issue specifically and As A Whole.

just the same as we see that intersection of transphobia and misogyny and androphobia with how trans women are treated (combined, of course, with other relevant aspects of an individual) we see much the same with trans men.

the difference is that people inherently Recognize that what's happening to trans women is more than Just ideas of transphobia (more than Just wanting people to stay the gender that they were assigned at birth), but they recognize Only the misogyny aspect. so when the same conversation is turned onto trans men people don't know what to do with it, Especially when combined with the (unfortunately common) denial that trans men experience Misogyny either.

that complex web of interlocking concepts, and in some cases the Idea Of intersectionality At All, are Denied to trans men. who are then minimized For the perceived lack in complexity (in their oppression, in their identities, and in their lived experiences).

"why not just call it anti-transmasc sentiment then? people might take it more seriously." even Ignoring Everything I've mentioned so far, the Reason I'm not happy with this is because trans men Are attacked (harassed, oppressed, however you want to phrase it) Specifically For Their Identities As Men. and as much as I Also want to establish that behavior and sentiment As stemming from transphobia, I Also don't think we benefit by erasing or softening that idea to make it more palatable to people who don't want to believe it.

this was a response I got to that post I linked at the very top of this essay. I trust that anyone reaching this point has an idea of how silly this is in context, if they haven't read that context themselves. and in fact I wasn't going to acknowledge it at all (I only have this image on hand because I took it to have a laugh with friends). but it's a Convenient and Simple illustration of this exact issue.

the hatred of trans men in trans, queer, and activist spaces is informed and Justified by the hatred of men as a whole. because If you can convince people that trans men are Inherently a privileged group you can justify presenting anything they do as attacking those less privileged than them.

Men are violent, Men shout down women, Men are misogynists, and so a trans man pointing out the existence of his own oppression while actively acknowledging the oppression of nonbinary people and trans women (Only making the point that it's unhelpful to try to quantify this oppression as a tier list and use that to inform how you treat individual people) that trans man is Actually just a Typical Violent Man Exerting His Privilege To Oppress Poor Women.

it's, very ironically, a silencing tactic to avoid addressing the oppression of a minority group to the benefit of the person doing it.

a trans man's manhood is a weapon that is Constantly used against him, and I Might (Might) be willing to call that "anti-trans masc sentiment" if I didn't know where it Stemmed from.

the relationship between radfems and the queer community is, to understate it, Fraught.

for most people who consider themselves to be trans allies, it's Easy to see that terfs are, you know, Bad. to understand that they're a transphobic group and Therefore dangerous. but by-and-large that'd Main and Only thing that that's understood about them.

and to an extent, that's because people believe that that understanding is Enough. that it's Enough to dismiss it out of hand and refuse to look at or Think about what terfs have to say. which is Understandable.

the issue is that no matter how much they Believe that terfs are bad and wrong, they're Still Vulnerable to being influenced by radfem ideology, talking points, and Active Intentional Manipulation if they don't actually know the Details of what it is they believe and how to spot them.

as a Very basic example, people who Believe "terfs are bad because they hate trans people" but Don't understand "radfems are bad because equate men and masculinity as being Inherent Violent and therefore inherently harmful to women" can see something like "men don't belong in women's spaces" and Not Understand that something they may be genuinely trying to consider or understand Is Radfem Rhetoric.

that specific example is, at this point, commonly understood as a terf dog whistle. but it's largely Only understood as a stand in for trans women and called out as transmisogyny.

which is a problem when, say, someone looks at a trans man talking about his experiences is oppression and trauma and says "this Man is shouting down women! this Man is being misogynistic and stealing spaces away from women! this Man doesn't Belong!" and Not Understand That It's The Same Idea. Because the person being targeted Isn't being misgendered (Most of the time), the exact Same silencing and othering tactic is used Effective against trans mascs while not being Recognized as that At All by the majority group.

sometimes these things happen because people passively absorb radfem rhetoric, integrate into their own way of thinking, and then use it against other minority groups without understanding what they're doing. sometimes this is done Very Intentionally by terfs trying to spread their own ideology and break up and cause rifts between groups.

this is not a hypothetical, this is Repeating History that we see over and over again with exclusionists in queer spaces. masterposts at the time had Dedicated Segments talking about the ways these groups shared ideas between each other, between radfems, even when the individuals Don't hate the same people [Link 1, Link 2]

there were Documented Instances of terfs Admitting that they had secret aphobe accounts that they were using to try to indoctrinate ace and aro exclusionists into their beliefs. there's documented instances of terfs admitting that they got to that point By Being indoctrinated through ace and aro exclusionist beliefs and talking points. we had terfs Openly comparing their ideologies to exclusionists Explicitly to recruit them. [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5]

Because if you're Willing to accept that these ideas Are True, that the Logic that terf ideology is based on is Sound, then you're More Likely to accept when that same logic is pointed at another group. they target people that you're more willing to hate to pull you into their beliefs entirely.

and some people will go on never hating trans people (or never hating trans Women or trans Men or Nonbinary People or Binary Trans People, whatever the particular poison they're drinking), but it doesn't suddenly become Okay when radfem ideology is being used to hurt groups that aren't common sense associated with it.

what's more, these exclusionists groups Hated when you pointed out that connection. would spit and yell and call you bigoted for Daring to make the connection, even when (at it's peak and Most Ridiculous) they were quite literally taking posts originally written by terfs and replacing "trans women" with "ace people." Word For Word. which means it Never got addressed, no matter who pointed it out or how obviously wide spread it was.

and it's Tiring to have to say "if you can't care about how this affects trans men then at Least consider how perpetuating this idea puts trans women in danger" But It's True.

if you let people perpetuate the idea that trans men are Violent, that they're Oppressive, that they don't Deserve to have their own spaces, that they Inherently talk over and erase other oppressed groups by talking about their own issues and asking for compassion, if you Let people say "this group of trans people is Inherently Lesser" Because They Are Men, Because Of Their Closeness To Masculinity, Because Testosterone Or Maleness Is Inherently Corrupting

the jump between Which trans group you think of this way is not as difficult as one would hope. and if we're Never able to address it for what it is, address it As radfem driven androphobia And transphobia And exclusionism then we're going to Keep creating spaces where people are vulnerable to indoctrination. to radfems, to terfs, to exclusionists, to Extremist Reactionary groups of all kinds.

and beyond all of That, as alarming and Important as it may be, it's Also worth noting that radfems (and even Terfs Specifically) Do use androphobia against trans men, even as they force feminine labels on them.

Yes there are the obvious direction that terf oppression of trans men takes. treating them like confused women and trying to indoctrinate and detransition them to Save them or Fix them (which, in itself, is a type of violence). and there's the Resentment of "the frigid uncaring woman trying to identify out of her oppression to instead oppress other women," which isn't a sentiment totally Removed from the issue with how trans mascs can be treated in queer spaces (quite the opposite really, punishing trans men for daring to Be men by equating them with privilege and thus treating them as both an outsider and a threat).

but there Are instances of terfs treating trans men as outright Predatory. as a threat to Them and as a threat to the "poor confused women" that get "manipulated" into "the trans cult" by the trans men they Couldn't indoctrinate.

trans men are vulnerable little girls that are too stupid to know what's good for them and have to be converted Saved, they're the poor lesbians being stolen away from the beds of Deserving radfems women, up until they're Too masculine. until they have beards, until their voices are deep, until they stop wearing makeup, until they're balding or their waste changes or or or-

then they've Mutilated Their Bodies, then they're Frightening, then they're Aggressive and Invasive and Need To Be Dealt With, then they're Ugly Men even as radfems try to deny it.

the feminine trans man is a mark, he's a damsel in distress that radfems want to isolate and indoctrinate. the masculine trans man is Frankenstein's Monster, he's an ugly brutalized image of masculinity, the picture of what radfems hate othered away from what they're a Picture Of by radfems' transphobia. Uncanny and hated just the same.

this isn't "worse" than what terfs do trans women, it's not "better" either, It's The Same, It's The Same.

transphobia, misogyny, and androphobia in a Melting Pot to create a horrific buffet of oppression and abuse. manifesting Differently in different situations and between different people, and yet Fundamentally Connected through the beliefs and ideologies at play.

taking away one of these terms used to Describe this phenomenon doesn't Help, it obfuscates the fact that these things Are connected. which Worsens our ability to Understand them and Address them.

these ideas are Important, not just for trans men but for All Of Us.

and while I'm here, I'd like to address the Other issue I have with proposed alternatives like "anti-trans masc sentiment," Even when proposed in good faith.

if we were to go back and reexamine the terminology for the queer community as a whole and assess if these terms are the most Efficient they possibly could be, would we change them? would we stop using a term like "homophobia" if softening it could make it more palatable? make it easier to introduce the concept to people on the fence? make it easier to ask people to address their own biases without alienating them? if we did away with terms like "internalized homophobia" and instead asked people to address their "complex relationship with gayness" would we be able to get More people to listen?

maybe we could, Maybe softening the term would instead lead to people taking these ideas Less seriously exactly Because it's less direct, Because it's soft, Because it deliberately seeks to Not draw a reaction from a reader. I genuinely couldn't say how this would play out in practice, though we'd probably see both reactions to a degree and thus endless discourse about its effectiveness as a term.

but that's ultimately overshadowed by the Bigger Picture (though, more accurately I could say that it also Informs that bigger picture).

and that's Unity. Cohesion. Communication. Community.

the point of creating terms like this is, of course, in part to give minority groups the vocabulary and perspective necessary to convey their experiences to people outside of said group. and this purpose is endlessly important of course.

but More than that it gives a Community the ability to open a conversation with each other, to take their experiences as Individuals and create a melting pot where they can get a bigger picture of what We As A Group, As A Community, Experience.

this is completely invaluable in every way. it's what allows people to find each other, to know they aren't alone. it allows people to move conversations forward, to unravel complex ideas in a way that Can Acknowledge a vast array of often conflicting and yet Connected experiences. to be able to Build a community together, when lacking a physical space to inhabit, we need Words to connect us. both in passing as neighbors and to Find as Strangers.

when you take a community that already has established terms and you try to popularize an alternative, Especially while encouraging people to Stop using the previous terms, you Split Up that line of communication. people who congregate around one term Won't be in conversation with people who congregate around another, which inhibits the community's ability to grow and deepen.

people who Dislike a term (because it's trying to take something away from them, because they've been told that it's morally reprehensible) Won't engage with it, so posts that are tagged with Only that term will not be found. and even If that term is (unrealistically) universally adopted over time There Will Be A Period where people are simply ignorant of it.

and this is Very Much So used as a weapon by people who Don't want these communities to unify. who Don't want them to talk to each other and Get Ideas. and the smaller, more tentative, less supported a group and term is the more Vulnerable they are to this tactic.

this was and Is used Regularly by exclusionists, though I'm most familiar with how it was used by ace and aro exclusionists Specifically.

they would argue Endlessly about how Anything the ace and aro groups coined for themselves was Bigoted Actually. "aphobe" was attacked by Insisting that it was a term used by autistic people to describe their oppression (a lie, and a ridiculous one at that. there's nothing bigoted about the same term being used for multiple purposes). and "Allo" faced An Endless Barrage of never Ever accepting any term, no alternative, because They Didn't Want Ace People To Be Able To Define The Group That Oppressed Them, because they didn't Believe in that oppression.

Exactly in the same way that transphobes tried to argue that "cis" was really an acronym for something bigoted and so "cis" should be abolished as a term. Exactly in the same way that people argue that "transandrophobia" is offensive Specifically Because they don't believe that trans men are oppressed for being Trans Men.

the point is that they will never accept a replacement term, no matter what. if there Isn't an issue with it (by coincidence or from a certain angle) they will lie to invent one. it's Already Happened with transadrophobia being the intended replacement for transmisandry.

because the Point is double. First to break up the intended target community to hinder conversation around an idea that you don't want to exist, to make it harder and harder for it to be found and (by extension) Understood and expanded upon. and Second to prevent communities from being able to solidify In The First Place.

this wasn't the only tactic that was used to hurt ace and aro people, but it Can't Be Denied that the affect that it had as a whole was devastating. it's been Years since this whole thing started, since it died down even, and the ace and aro communities have yet to recover.

it's Easy to fall into the trap and say "well if we just get the term Right this time then it'll be okay ! if we Fix It then they'll stop!" but it Is exactly a trap. the point of phrasing it like this, of making it about bigotry or about the term being Problematic, is Both intended to demonize the group for having the Audacity to create a term for themselves at All, And to take advantage of well meaning people within the targeted community to do the leg work for them.

it's about silencing, it's about destabilization, it's about Breaking Apart communities so they can't Grow.

"Meet me halfway," they say. you take a step forward, they take a step back. "Meet me halfway," they say.

#discourse #trans unity #transphobia #transandrophobia #transmisogyny #androphobia #transmisandry #it's been a while since I've used that tag #but it feels appropriate here #long post #Really Long Post #when I started this I didn't intend for it to be Even Longer than the post it's in response to #Engages In Toxic Masculinity By Being Incapable Of Expressing Any Concept Or Idea Without Writing A Peer Reviewed Essay #actually while we're here #can I just make fun of that anon I got a Little Bit #shout out to the Very feminist take that women don't type essays

206 notes · View notes

the-path-to-redemption · 1 year

Note

I personally like masc women in media and masc x femme couples and if I cold I would make Yang more masc since the start... But man you're right and you should say it. They changed the way Yang behaves /very/ clearly to... "Butchify" her as the fandom would say (but even then calling her butch genuinely is almost insulting). If this was a story written by sapphic women I wouldn't criticize this as much but this is a show written by cishet men so I think the way they handle Yang and Blake after they became a couple is very weird, as a sapphic myself.

Exactly what I wanted to say as a fellow sapphic.

There's nothing wrong with that dynamic at all. Hell, it's normal, because there's real examples of this dynamic in real life and I'm not saying that Yang and Blake has to be both girly girls.

But canon Bumbleb/y is an extremely heteronormative relationship when you look at RT's history of misogynistic, queerphobia, and lack of understanding about minorities in general. They want to make Yang "the man" of the relationship, even though initially she was much more feminine than Blake.

And Blake lost all of her fire. She's just Yang's meek arm candy now, barely able to help herself, and that's how CRWBY sees and interpret the role of the "woman" in the relationship. The "woman" is a damsel, and the "man" is the savior. No matter what their initial personality may be.

You're right. If they wanted that masc x femme energy the way Bumbleb/y is portrayed right now, they would've made Yang a butch from the get go.

#answered #anonymous #rwby critical #anti rooster teeth #anti miles luna #anti bumbleby #rwde #it's all rooted in misogyny babe

25 notes · View notes

myragewillendworlds · 8 months

Text

Long random rant, but: I can't stand when people parade thoughts around as "progressive" that are actually completely fucking discriminatory.

Just saw a woman unironically state (once again, nothing new here) that all men are dangerous, and all men are responsible for all acts of violence that the minority commits against women. For some reason, these statements were held up as the 'good' way of thinking, while the man who replied to point out that, maybe, it's insane to think of half the planet's population as inherently dangerous for no good reason at all, gets branded as an "incel".

People will try to make this language less sexist by saying "cishet men" instead, even though that only adds layers of discrimination. What makes you think you can tell cisgender men from transgender men, or bisexual/gay men from straight men so easily? I thought only TERFs were arrogant and transphobic enough to uphold the belief that there is such an instantly visible difference, but the self-proclaimed "progressives" who think themselves the warriors of morality are no less transphobic with their continued othering of transgender men. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people call transgender people "cis" for disagreeing with them – or simply not being able to tell.

"B-But the cishet male socialization!" Because you know what each individual was raised like? Every single woman was raised to be submissive and demure, every single man was raised to be a raging narcissist? You don't know how people are raised, what shaped them, what they've learned and been through. Childhood abuse, neglect, bullying and many other adverse childhood experiences are astronomically rampant, and affect everyone differently. You have no way to state that, just because someone was born with a penis, they were raised Exactly Like This to become Exactly Like That.

Lastly…….the fucking whining about the "patriarchy". No one whines more about living in a patriarchy than well-off, privileged Western women. Talk to a woman from Iran or Afghanistan and then shut the fuck up about your "oppression" or how having a creep in your social media inbox means you live in a "rape culture". Yes, there is such a thing as a patriarchy in some parts of the world – but you aren't living in it, which is why you get to be a raging sexist cunt on the internet under a profile with your real name and photo and experience not only no consequences for it, but actively have people around you admire you for it.

#making (false) assumptions about people = manipulating and fabricating narratives in your favor #get some fucking therapy if you think that's normal

18 notes · View notes

lucienne-thee-librarian · 8 months

Text

I truly think it would solve so many problems with intra-community bigotry and even just community infighting as a whole, if people could learn how to unpack their own personal traumas and insecurities around their gender/sexuality/life in general without projecting it constantly and obviously onto other people instead of purely blaming the people who yknow. Actually hurt you.

Like, you see this all the time where people have understandable and legitimate issues but they see other queer people whose lives and choices remind them of the things they feel inadequate or insecure about. That's entirely normal, and human and to some degree inevitable, and not what I'm criticizing. You can't help your initial knee jerk feelings, all you can do is learn to work through them and eventually hopefully heal and learn how to manage them in the meantime.

Where it becomes a problem is when people have no self-awareness about this at all or when they take these feelings as fact every single time and make other queer people responsible for their own trauma. Like, you see it all the time with...just to name a few examples:

Bisexual women who end up in long term relationships with men being treated as like. Just Barsexual or see people expressing angst about Becoming Them. And like...I get where it's coming from, bisexuality is constantly erased so especially if you're a woman in a relationship with a man. Being with the right man who'll Fix You is something dangled over every queer woman's head, it's what society expects us all to do, so I can see why people would think "we need to prove them wrong" and also be rightly afraid of the prospect for themselves being essentially quietly repeatedly pushed out of the queer community. But...that's not the problem of random bisexuals. And repeatedly apologizing for your attraction to men and making ball and chain jokes is not gonna fix the issue. The whole problem is bi people's personal lives being forever treated as a political statement or a pledge of loyalty in an eternal stupid, regressive on multiple levels Battle of the Sexes instead of...just their personal lives, right? They're not responsible for society's bi erasure.

Flamboyant or "feminine" gay men are not the reason the guys who picked on you because they guessed you were gay despite your masculinity picked on you. They didn't invent stereotypes, they're just trying to live their lives, and there's nothing wrong with being a "stereotypical" gay man anyway. Your own internalized shame and rightful annoyance at being stereotyped is not an excuse to shit on other people for something harmless. Same with feminine queer women and butches. Like...yes, we've all been terrorized with the Mannish (and therefore Ugly) dyke stereotypes but maybe the problem is equating gender nonconformity with ugliness and violence and lack of worth??? And cishet people's willingness, again, to stereotype??? Shitting on butch women is not going to fix society, it won't go back in time and undo your own personal anguish. They are not responsible. They're just trying to express themselves the way that best fits them.

And on the even more extreme and inexcusable end:

I see the same impulse in a vocal minority of lesbian terfs (a lot of the people who clain the loudest to be Lesbian Allies...aren't lesbians lol, hi JoRo 🙃🖕🖕🖕🖕) making it out like there's an Epidemic of all these lesbians who are being Brainwashed by Self Hatred, Misogyny and Lesbophobia into wanting to be men rather than be lesbians. One of the most memorable examples being, the reaction by some to Elliot Page's second coming out.

Of course, this kind of overlooks...a million fucking things, like how just as many trans men if not more, do not in fact follow this narrative because they did not identify as lesbians before their transition and came out as gay/bisexual trans men instead...or the fact that you have to be seriously disengenous or just. Not Live on Earth to actually say that trans people of ANY stripe including transmascs, as a group somehow have it BETTER than cis people even cis women and face less discrimination...or that for every "lesbian" who later came out as a straight trans dude/nonbinary transmasc like Elliot, there are a thousand cis lesbians still out here around the world *waves* hiiii...

I honestly think the biggest issue out of all of it, because these facts don't seem to MATTER to these loud online terfy lesbians, ia that these people are fundamentally just. Making the world about them. They're projecting their ideas and experiences onto everyone else. Elliot Page isn't just a thirty-something adult with his own opinions and feelings and thoughts and life experiences separate from these people, who should be deemed the #1 expert on their own body and life and what decisions to make about it. Not to these people, to them he's an expression of...the trauma they've faced in THEIR lives living as lesbians, as women, and a tragic story about how Sexism and Homophobia Wins Again. He's a cautionary tale to them, not...a person. So Elliot Page's actual happiness and well-being, or simply their own opinions and words about their life, and their motivations...don't really matter to these women, because their own grasp of their own identities depends on other people doing what they think should be done, and staying Loyal to a label for life. And someone choosing to leave that identity behind triggers those old insecurities that they've repeatedly refused to find a better way of dealing with. Their sense of self is THAT fragile. Which is sad...but obviously doesn't excuse their alignment with a goddamn hate movement whose rhetoric has only grown more violent in the last few years.

Idk, I just think so much pain and harassment and...bullshit would be better if we could all actually learn, repeatedly, through mental habits and patience and therapy and growth etc etc...to see other people AS PEOPLE in their own right without being reflections on us.

#lgbtq community #biphobia #homophobia #acephobia #transphobia #if anybody starts clowning in the notes I'm just gonna block you or turn reblogs off if it gets bad #so don't waste your time #no I didn't cite Every Possible Example cause this is long enough already #also I just wanted to cite the stuff I felt most comfortable speaking on #I'm not actually trying to resurrect every stupid bit of Discourse over the last 20 years #just trying to make a larger point about how we should treat each other #and if trying to win old battles is all you take from this Congrats!!! You missed the point!! You get an F

9 notes · View notes