oh yeah (Posts tagged m.)

Anonymous asked:

anytime you post im gonna go jerk off to trans women getting fucked. if you want to support a group which you admit has a problem with assaulting and not respecting trans men then i'll make it my job to work on doing the same to them!

obvious bait is obvious but this is actually very funny to me “trans women getting fucked” so like. porn? you’re gonna go jerk off to porn? its totally fine and all but i’m not really sure how jerking off to people whose job it is to make content to be jerked off to is getting one over on those evil oppressive trans women. oooohhh anon you’ve got ‘em scared now, now that you are going to masturbate alone in your room to trans women. how brave how noble

m. ask box

not fully comfortable with the og screenshot in the post I initially reblogged about transmascfeminism (I generally try to avoid bringing people venting, especially in flawed ways, about situations they are intensely emotionally affected by into more political conversations unless they are explicitly okay with that - even when it comes to TERFs, I think we should avoid digging into someone’s expression of trauma or at least making criticisms with more compassion than I have seen from many folks, and it’s not really relevant to the points I’m making anyways) and so I’m just gonna copy + paste what I said there, here, for people to understand what my issues are. You can also see this post & the post linked to it for how TMF responded.

This is not intended as a “callout.” I do not want anyone to be harassed, or even sent messages or asks trying to bait him into a debate or demand answers on the subject. I don’t think any of that is helpful and I don’t think fixating on any single individual is helpful to the bigger issue at hand. I have TMF blocked at this point and if you agree with my points here, I encourage you to do the same. It’s clear to me other people are also uncomfortable with this rhetoric in spaces discuss anti transmasculinity, which only reaffirms to me that we need to have a very explicit conversation about this within spaces that discuss anti-transmasculinity.

I think the rhetoric being promoted here is bad for trans and intersex people, and I was genuinely hopeful to see more people contributing to anti-transmasculinity theory. I just want to make my points about why this is disappointing, and to reiterate that transandrophobia/anti transmasculinity theory has always been pushing for a rejection of cissexist radical feminism and towards a nuanced, anti-binary and trans-centric feminism. Transunity emerged from this conversation for a reason, and I don’t think an anti-transunity, anti-transfeminist stance is actually going to lead to productive, beneficial theory. In these spaces, we have not spent months talking about how bad it is that TME/TMA is just a new way for trans people to be classed based on their assigned sex at birth into static categories, just to let “people are treating female as a dirty word!” and “intersex people are a vanishingly small group and bringing them up when it comes to "sex based oppression” is just a distraction from discussing AFAB oppression that doesn’t meaningfully impact AMABs" and “people criticizing AFAB and AMAB being used in this way are anti-feminist and leading to the real life Handmaid’s Tale” slide.

Keep reading

I do honestly suspect that there is a group of like. idk 10 to 15 anti-transfeminine radical feminist leaning folks that have set up camp in the transandrophobia tag, because just over this last month I have been getting nonstop bullshit in my ask box trying in variously lazy ways to stir up shit against trans women. I don’t go in the tag itself much but from what I’ve heard, there’s been a recent problem there.

There are definitely strains of radical feminism and anti-transfemininity in these spaces regardless, because no group of trans people is immune to internalizing bigotry or turning to cissexist feminism in order to legitimize their oppression when it is constantly erased. But it does feel like there has been a recent concerted effort to push the conversation about anti transmasculinity in that direction. I do not think this is something that just naturally started happening.

Anonymous asked:

Honestly thank you for being so committed to denying material reality. I’m an intersex survivor of extreme religious and medical misogyny and seeing people like you use me to deny sex based oppression is honestly one of the reasons I’m going to detrans.

Do you think the men who wanted to mutilate my or my sisters clits (or those of millions of children around the world) check our chromosomes first? Do you think the men who wed us as teenagers care about discussions of sex as a spectrum?

I have no issue with those conversations happening in tandem. But not at the expense of our bodies and our lives

Btw if there were no material differences between the sexes then why is it wrong that medicine, heart attack protocols are primarily tested on cis men.

I’m done. I know you probably won’t answer this and if you do you’ll just double down but from the bottom of my heart, you are causing harm to extremely vulnerable people who will inevitably turn to spaces where we don’t have to pretend that your socially assigned gender at birth has no bearing on your life

Please point to where I ever said that there are no sexual differences between people’s bodies that impact how they are treated and what kinds of violence they face. Or where I said the gender you are assigned has no bearing on your life. Or explain why you have completely ignored how I’ve talked about using “people perceived as / treated as / raised as female” to talk about these exact issues.

I’m not denying material reality. I’m saying we should talk about it carefully in a way that doesn’t obscure certain elements of material reality and reify patriarchal social constructs.

m. ask box

as if losing Dolly wasn’t enough

Anonymous asked:

love the whole excuse TMF made for using AGAB terms, especially as a way to demonize "AMABs". His first response just being "how unfortunate" to learning he's using intersexist language coined by violent intersexists who did non-consentual surgeries on children.

"How long is this line going to be used as an excuse to keep the euphemism treadmill going so there is simply no way to describe the experience of people who are affected by misogyny from the moment of birth"

I mean the socially-imposed gender terminology exists, socially-imposed female and socially-imposed male. They are intersex and trans inclusive and admit the fact that trans men and transmascs can be read as female and be oppressed for so, while also acknowledging the same for trans women, transfems and any kind of non-binary person regardless of AGAB. These terms acknowledge the fact that intersex and trans people can be treated as different genders during different points of their life and that it's imposed onto them against their will and used against them.

And he would probably know about this terminology if he listened to intersex voices.

But from what I can tell reading his post, he clearly just wants to use a term that excludes trans women and transfems.

He basically makes the argument "but intersex people and trans women make up such a small population" yeah that's still MILLIONS of people at least.

LITERALLY!!!! I have been using “people seen as / raised as / classed as” [men/women]“ for a while now, and its been very useful for me. Its not like intersex feminists don’t also think this is an important thing to discuss; people have been proposing new ways to talk about misogyny and gender oppression in ways that don’t reproduce patriarchal, transphobic, intersexist ways of thinking about gender and sex.

& while some people do experience misogyny from birth, its fundamentally anti-transfeminine to act like only those people are the relevant victims of misogyny.

These terms acknowledge the fact that intersex and trans people can be treated as different genders during different points of their life and that it’s imposed onto them against their will and used against them.

^^^ this is why these terms are so important, and why it makes sense that someone who is openly anti-transfeminism (which I think I can comfortably say at this point) is against them. I feel a fundamental part of transfeminism is/should be an anti-binary analysis of patriarchy, challenging the idea that all gender oppression can be reduced down to some form of "m > f” by exposing that while patriarchy is ideologically binary and very strict and static about it, its actual behavior and the system itself can never be binary, because it has to account for the existence of queers & use the threat of failing wo/manhood to keep people in line.

Cissexist feminism’s analysis of patriarchy is based on a static binary of “male” (or men or AMAB or TME) and “female” (or women or AFAB or TMA). This will never be good for trans or intersex liberation, because it always fails to truly understand how the oppression of queerness (including transness and intersexuality) is as fundamental to patriarchy as the oppression of people seen as women (amongst other criticisms one can make). Everyone stop trying to squeeze your trans group into the ideal feminist subject at the cost of other trans peoplel!!!!

m. ask box

Anonymous asked:

I’m not that last anon you answered. In your answer your sentence about “…in order to discuss the reproductive violence people who can get pregnant or menstruate can face…” etc, part of the frustration I think people have is that these objections about language being too imprecise are pretty clearly being used to shut down discussion of reproductive violence that categorically does not affect perisex (and a lot of intersex) trans women, like pregnancy, in a way that’s reminiscent of the “no I believe you have problems you’re just using the wrong word once you have the right word I’ll listen” handwringing that people do about transandrophobia etc.

Like in the recent discussions of bioessentialist misogyny, people have been talking about how it affects vaginas, and how trans women with neovaginas are affected by this too. I agree! It does affect them and they do face bigotry because of it even just within the trans community. But it’s overwhelmingly talking about having a vagina, and very obviously sidestepping talking about having a uterus/the ability to get pregnant, which is again something the vast majority of trans women categorically do not experience. It is a discussion where they are not included, and that’s *fine*. Trans men would also be excluded from discussion of bigotry pertaining to neovaginas specifically, as it is something the vast majority of them cannot experience.

The issue here is the obvious sidestepping and attempts to shut down discussion of pregnancy-related violence.

I mean, I can get the frustration. But I am also not going to give people a free pass to be intersexist and cissexist because they don’t know how to deal with people’s bad faith arguments. This whole conversation started because of people insisting that AGAB language was “language feminists use to talk about sexism,” complaining about trans and intersex people making “female” a “dirty word,” and saying that if they couldn’t use AGAB language, then there’s no way to talk about these issues.

If someone is using criticisms of language to derail a conversation about pregnancy, then call that out, and continue having a conversation about people who can get pregnant. I am also frustrated by people who try to shut down trans men and nonbinary people talking about pregnancy and abortion because of their internalized anti-transmasculinity and exorsexism, but I’m not letting myself get convinced that, for some reason, the fault lies with the fact we aren’t being cissexist and intersexist enough in our language, and that somehow if we start using vague language and sweeping statements that will somehow fix the problem.

It is so very easy to say “people who can get pregnant.” This is the point trans people have been making for years. Why are we acting like this is such a difficult thing for us to do instead of saying “AFAB” or “female.”

m. ask box

Anonymous asked:

Okay, I read your exchange with TMF and while I don't think TMF comported themselves well, I also feel frustrated by how sodomit completely mischaracterized multiple arguments from them and by how you criticized AGAB language without actually suggesting any alternatives for how to describe people impacted by bioessentialist/sexist misogyny.

It feels frustratingly like there is no way for people to describe this oppressed group or even refer to the studies we have on trans people because none of the words in feminist theory or clinical surveys are good enough for tumblr.

People pretend that being socialized as a boy or girl is the same thing as experiencing sexism but it's not, and transmasculine people's experiences prove that it's not. People will still call us hysterical cunts in the same breath as they tell us to man up, deny us insurance coverage for the OBGYN who's going to treat us like shit because we are men.

I hate that TMF used the terms "vanishingly small" to describe intersex people and that WAS wrong - and - the frustration that people only have criticisms for the language used and don't actually describe the oppression experienced "correctly" is very real. It reminds me of how TERFs will lose it when you call transmisogyny a form of misogyny because misogyny is oppression of the "female sex", but when you ask what to call the oppression of trans women, they never answer. It feels like a way to criticize discussion of the concept itself in a way that TMF's post does cut to the heart of for me.

Why can’t we say “people impacted by bioessentialist/sexist misogyny”? You just verbalized exactly what you were trying to describe pretty well there. You are right that bioessentialist misogyny isn’t the same as gender socialization, but you just described exactly what you are saying you don’t have words for without AFAB/AMAB. So what’s the issue? The only one I could see is that trans women and other people assigned male are frequently impacted by bioessentialist/sexist misogyny (as well as bioessentialist misandry) and it seems there’s a strong motivation by some to try to define a group that experiences bioessentialist misogyny that just so happens to exclude anyone assigned male. Because they think that in order to discuss the reproductive violence people who can get pregnant or menstruate can face, we have to reify intersexist and cissexist constructs and become just as territorial of who gets to be a victim of misogyny as the exact same people who deny transandrophobia/anti-transmasculinity.

On this blog I am constantly using the language of “people perceived as female” for this exact purpose; “perceived as female” prevents us from reifying the construct of “female sex” and treating it as something totally real and objective, while also acknowledging that the construct of femaleness is an influential tool of power for patriarchy, even though we should be highly critical of how the patriarchy claims it is defined, and how the concept is actually weaponized. (For example, even though the patriarchy denies that trans women are “female,” it still weaponizes misogyny related to the construct of femaleness against them. Many intersex people are simultaneously told they do not count as female, while also facing bioessentialist misogyny for parts of their body that are perceived as “female.”)

I didn’t feel the need to propose an alternative in that post because I frequently discuss these exact same issues using alternative language. This idea that we need to say “AFAB” or “female” in order to talk about these issues ignores the fact that plenty of trans and intersex people are already accomplishing that, in the exact same places we are criticizing the use of AGAB or “female/male.”

It’s also not like we’re all ripping apart any study that uses AGAB language. The USTS, constantly referenced in transunitist spaces and widely used by studies on trans people in the US, breaks nonbinary people down by AGAB. It’s not like people are saying “ANYTHING that EVER uses AGAB language is TERRIBLE and NO ONE should listen to it!” but there is a difference between a study utilizing imperfect paradigms for the sake of getting important data, and people who have no budget or statistical restraints choosing to use AGAB language instead of engaging with the criticisms that have, again, been being made for years, and the people making those criticisms have been actively discussing these issues without using that language, for years.

I refuse to believe that someone so well-read on feminism and philosophy is so ignorant of the alternative language people have been using. It’s just frankly ridiculous to act like people who criticize the use of AGAB or “female” are not also talking about bioessentialist misogyny, like these aren’t topics we are also concerned about, because that’s the only logical takeaway from this insistence that if you can’t make sweeping statements about AFABs and AMABs and what kinds of misogyny they experience, then you can’t talk about bioessentialist misogyny.

m. ask box sorry if this seems snappy anon but like. do you follow me? because i feel like anyone who follows me should know exactly what my alternatives are transfeminism transunity

(context & the post screenshotted here if you wanna read it)

lol. lmao even.

maybe i’m missing something but i don’t even see why we would be obligated to tag him? it may have been nice of us to do, but like. i am not shocked at the idea of people talking about me, positively or negatively, and not tagging me. its pretty normal i feel. probably felt really bad to for him to see, because he clearly felt i would be on his side, but c'est la vie.

i don’t want anyone to harass him, to be clear, in any kind of manner. i also want to say that i do agree that i think sodomit didn’t accurately describe exactly what his (or the screenshotted person’s) points were, and the criticisms made of his points were not as strong as they could’ve been as a result of this. but i saw the post i saw and that led me to see those posts on his blog and so i responded on that post with my thoughts on the matter, because i had genuinely been interested in some of his posts before.

anyways, he doubled down on describing intersex people assigned male as a “vanishingly small” group and said (quoting me in the indent)

i think its clear TMF is aligned with radical feminism ideologically, and is pretty unapologetically intersexist, and i think people who are genuinely concerned with collective liberation of all people of all genders should take serious issue with this rise in radical feminist ideology focused on anti-transmasculinity.

this only reaffirms to me how desperately we need anti-binary feminism, and how much the “anti-transfeminist” attitude we’ve seen popping up needs to be openly criticized. transandrophobia and anti-transmasculinity have been theorized from an explicitly transfeminist, intersectional feminist, and transunitist context for years. transmasc oppression has been theorized in the context of criticizing how so much trans activism has become simply cissexist white feminism adjusted just enough to include some trans women, exactly as Emi Koyama foresaw decades ago. and now we have people trying to create a version of cissexist white feminism but for trans men. i find this absolutely terrible and i am going to continue criticizing this when i see it because i believe that it is either transunity or death. i really do not know which sexists are giving me pats on the back, but that sounds very similar to anti-transmasculine people insisting that transunity is MRA rhetoric, and MRAs insisting that feminist male liberation is radical feminist rhetoric.

(side note: its very funny how mad he is about me and my “nicely worded reasonable posts” and my “tiresome Reasonable Well Mannered Activist affect” babe i’m just autistic. i talk like a textbook and have a strong sense of justice that makes me take things seriously because its how i work, for better and for worse. my affect becomes “tiresome” and is seen as manipulative as soon as people disagree with me, it seems. i managed to hold my tongue on criticisms i could make of how he writes his posts!)

m. ''this is why you've been blogging for years and achieved nothing'' ............. okay lol

its really insane to me that people talk about the reproductive violence done during slavery in the United States, and completely leave Black people seen as men out of the conversation? like obviously Black people seen as women bore the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth, which shouldn’t be downplayed; childbirth can literally kill a person, especially a person who is also forced to do hard labor throughout their pregnancy. but its just strange how, when specifically talking about the elements of forced sex, Black men almost fade into the background, or into disembodied penises, with the implicit assumption that forced sex and reproduction is deeply traumatizing for the ones being penetrated, but the ones being forced to penetrate wouldn’t have had any internal experience of violation and trauma, or going further, that they didn’t have feelings about what then happens to the children they were forced to create and then denied fatherhood for.

its just like. reproduction is, by necessity, a two-person job, so the fact that people can talk about reproductive violence of slavery and only talk about women and not men should be something obviously deeply wrong. and then when we look at the most recent available data for how racialized men are affected by forced-to-penetrate rape in the US, Black and multiracial men have particularly high rates, and are continually sexually objectified and denied vulnerability, denied the status of victim who deserves sympathy and protection and outrage on their behalf when they are violated and hurt.

m. sexual violence tw

oh yeah (Posts tagged m.)

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.