(their former urls are birobotic, aromasterchief, transkrem, bimonsters, zemyatta and robotcas)
don’t go and harass them, this is just a warning to people they’ve given off a lot of red flags and generally dismissed transmisogyny
made a post trying to reappropriate the idea of terfs to create the spectre of “Terfs 2.0″: “women and fem aligned NBs” who support trans women but are oppressive to trans men and masc NBs.
convinced that any transmisoginistic reading of their post was putting words in their mouth even after they admitted their post was vague and unclear
blocked me and @anarchotransfem and claimed they were being abusive, again just for asking them to clarify the meaning in their poorly worded post
whatever the hell happened in this reply they sent immediately after they blocked me, claiming that transfems being concerned about transmisogyny in their post was a purposeful attack on their mental health, that this was a concerted effort to gang up on them. it’s basically textbook “how not to react” after people tell you that you’ve fucked up.
even after the original post got clarified, they seem to genuinely think fem aligned NBs are oppressing masc aligned NBs on the basis of masculine alignment, which is, convoluted to say the least
while a lot of their posts about how trans men’s access to male privilege is highly conditional is stuff i agree with, it does start to give a bad impression when coupled with; their dismissal of transmisogyny, their near constant assertion that cis women are their main oppressor on the basis of gender (cis women specifically rather than cis people generally), and their assertions that cis women and trans men have identical experiences of misogyny. basically, it starts to look like the common truscum assertion that trans masc people can’t possibly hold power over trans women (and the corollary, that trans women who talk about transmisogyny are misandrists). they outright claim “trans people have no power” in reference to trans men having no social power for being men.
tbh i don’t think they’re even aware that what they’re saying could have these implications, and by no means do i think they’re actually a truscum or absorbing any truscum rhetoric. please don’t harass them, this is just to get the word out to other people not to interact with them concerning transmisogyny, because it looks pretty futile and i don’t want any more transfems to have to deal with their childlike behavior.
the rest of this horrible interaction and related screenshots under the cut
If Donald Trump is racist, so is Australia and Malcolm Turnbull, says US Homeland Security chief.
“We agree with you completely,” responded a large amount of Australians. “You’ve hit the nail completely on the head. They’re both a bunch of big old racists who have racist policies against refugees. Glad you’ve finally admitted it.”
“Actually I meant to use that as an argument as to why Trump isn’t racist,” replied the security chief, Kirstjen Nielsen.
“Nope. Doesn’t work that way. You’re bad at logic and also your president is a racist.”
Australians started singing a catchy sitcom-esque theme song. “Trump and Turnbull racists togeeetheerrr, you know what they say about birds of a feaaattherr. Treating refugees with disdain, I hope no one ever votes for them again! Badadadaaaa they’re bad people aaayeeahhaaa.” (followed by a guitar solo).
One of my favorite tropes is post apocalyptic towns being named after dilapidated signs with missing letters, like Novac (no vacancy) and Eaden (dead end). There’s something inexplicable about it
there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.
Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it
Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?
Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.
I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?
“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?
But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?
Am I missing something?
i’m also struggling with this post. i’m sure this is about those types that have “terfs don’t follow” in their bios and are pretty sure they’re fighting for trans women but end up consuming terf rhetoric anyway (especially if it’s rhetoric aimed at specifically nonbinary people and less obviously trans women, like ‘mogai gender’ shit) so i think i got the basics.
but i’m really struggling to follow this mainly because you’re sorting nonbinary people into “equivalent to trans men” and “equivalent to cis women” which aren’t really categories that have any use, aren’t categories that i see nb people applying to themselves and don’t have actual real world implications. and you’ve made a post that looks like a big question mark to anyone applying this dynamic to camab or non-TME nbs
my point to writing it that way is that is how these people are treating nbs (as basically men or basically women, and that anyone non woman/fem aligned is basically men to them.) sorry if that wasn’t clear
So “basically women” enbys are equivalent to cis women in perpetuating this type of transphobia primarily against trans men and “basically men” enbys?
wow you’re so good at twisting words.
they didn’t say that. they didn’t say that fem aligned enbies are basically women, or that we’re attacking anyone. they said that those terfs (cuz im going to call these cis feminists terfs like i always did) are the ones imposing their bs binary on us all and attacking anyone they don’t see fitting their vision of women, cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men. and that means gatekeeping the sapphic community from anyone who so much id as masc, like genderfluid ppl, for example, or agender ppl who use he/his.
recent example of this: that one enby person who im not gonna name who was accused of lesbophobia and reduced to “basically a man” by cis shithead fake feminists, so they could bash them as they would do a cis man, which is fucking gross, but super convenient cus no one is gonna try to debunk accusations of lesbophobia thrown at a man. basically, misgendering so they can attribute nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men and masc aligned enbies.
they’re not saying anywhere that we fem enbies are perpetuating that shit. they’re implying, rightfully imo, that we’re being misgendered to “basically women” because that’s the only way those new waves terfs will respect us, by treating us like misguided ppl who should just say we’re females or some shit. like. fake tolerance of trans ppl because they can still assimilate us in spite of everything.
I get the premise. except this post is nearly confusing than the OPs.
“cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men.” “nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men”. these quotes read like something from an alternate universe. they’re fucking incomprehensible. you’ve called all trans men nonbinary. you’ve said “man aligned men” whatever that is, aren’t men. I get that you’re talking about misgendering NBs to suite cis feminists needs but, you’ve kind of misgendered every trans man who isn’t also nonbinary.
but reading around that. i do really appreciate your last paragraph in pointing out how it affects transfems, and it does make sense of the OPs sentiment for me. I still think u’ve got to use something other than TERF to mean “cis feminists and NBs who engage in tactical misgendering” though if they aren’t transmisoginistic. can i suggest ‘binarist’ or something. though i think this does fit under exorsexism already
that’s…..actually all I was trying to say. that we need a term other than “TERF” for these people. and “binarist” is specific to binary enforcement on Native people, so that term actually does not work. but I was informed there are existing terms for this that I’m now looking into.
yeah cool. i’m glad we agree. please next time think about the implications you could be implying about trans women and transfem nbs, or get ask to bounce your ideas off of us first on posts like this. because “there’s a new kind of terf who love transfems but hate trans mascs” is kind of gross in the context of how actual terfs and truscum operate, by minimising transmisogyny and trying to say “””only bio females could ever be oppressed””“. you know like the old “transmisandry” rhetoric. and not assuming hostility on our part too would be great.
If your bad hot take is tme people are being oppressed the most in the trans community by transmisogynists you should at least make it compact enough to read
there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.
Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it
Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?
Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.
I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?
“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?
But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?
Am I missing something?
i’m also struggling with this post. i’m sure this is about those types that have “terfs don’t follow” in their bios and are pretty sure they’re fighting for trans women but end up consuming terf rhetoric anyway (especially if it’s rhetoric aimed at specifically nonbinary people and less obviously trans women, like ‘mogai gender’ shit) so i think i got the basics.
but i’m really struggling to follow this mainly because you’re sorting nonbinary people into “equivalent to trans men” and “equivalent to cis women” which aren’t really categories that have any use, aren’t categories that i see nb people applying to themselves and don’t have actual real world implications. and you’ve made a post that looks like a big question mark to anyone applying this dynamic to camab or non-TME nbs
my point to writing it that way is that is how these people are treating nbs (as basically men or basically women, and that anyone non woman/fem aligned is basically men to them.) sorry if that wasn’t clear
So “basically women” enbys are equivalent to cis women in perpetuating this type of transphobia primarily against trans men and “basically men” enbys?
wow you’re so good at twisting words.
they didn’t say that. they didn’t say that fem aligned enbies are basically women, or that we’re attacking anyone. they said that those terfs (cuz im going to call these cis feminists terfs like i always did) are the ones imposing their bs binary on us all and attacking anyone they don’t see fitting their vision of women, cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men. and that means gatekeeping the sapphic community from anyone who so much id as masc, like genderfluid ppl, for example, or agender ppl who use he/his.
recent example of this: that one enby person who im not gonna name who was accused of lesbophobia and reduced to “basically a man” by cis shithead fake feminists, so they could bash them as they would do a cis man, which is fucking gross, but super convenient cus no one is gonna try to debunk accusations of lesbophobia thrown at a man. basically, misgendering so they can attribute nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men and masc aligned enbies.
they’re not saying anywhere that we fem enbies are perpetuating that shit. they’re implying, rightfully imo, that we’re being misgendered to “basically women” because that’s the only way those new waves terfs will respect us, by treating us like misguided ppl who should just say we’re females or some shit. like. fake tolerance of trans ppl because they can still assimilate us in spite of everything.
I get the premise. except this post is nearly confusing than the OPs.
“cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men.” “nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men”. these quotes read like something from an alternate universe. they’re fucking incomprehensible. you’ve called all trans men nonbinary. you’ve said “man aligned men” whatever that is, aren’t men. I get that you’re talking about misgendering NBs to suite cis feminists needs but, you’ve kind of misgendered every trans man who isn’t also nonbinary.
but reading around that. i do really appreciate your last paragraph in pointing out how it affects transfems, and it does make sense of the OPs sentiment for me. I still think u’ve got to use something other than TERF to mean “cis feminists and NBs who engage in tactical misgendering” though if they aren’t transmisoginistic. can i suggest ‘binarist’ or something. though i think this does fit under exorsexism already
there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.
Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it
Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?
Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.
I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?
“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?
But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?
Am I missing something?
i’m also struggling with this post. i’m sure this is about those types that have “terfs don’t follow” in their bios and are pretty sure they’re fighting for trans women but end up consuming terf rhetoric anyway (especially if it’s rhetoric aimed at specifically nonbinary people and less obviously trans women, like ‘mogai gender’ shit) so i think i got the basics.
but i’m really struggling to follow this mainly because you’re sorting nonbinary people into “equivalent to trans men” and “equivalent to cis women” which aren’t really categories that have any use, aren’t categories that i see nb people applying to themselves and don’t have actual real world implications. and you’ve made a post that looks like a big question mark to anyone applying this dynamic to camab or non-TME nbs
author: shes powered by tittium which requires her to be naked at all times
fans: SEE I TOLD YOU IT WASNT FANSERVICE
🍓🧀 (archive) 