The common representation of transwomen being this hyper feminine, painted, shaved, tiny waist, big breasted, tight clothes, long haired image really should say a lot about two things.
1) What men think women should look like
2) What men think being a woman is
Yes, because trans women suffer from misogyny and misogynistic expectations, too—when not represented as masculine, with stubble, fat, with tight clothes revealing “male” features. Which also says a lot.
Men cannot suffer from misogyny. Presenting themselves as hyped up versions of what they think women are is misogyny towards actual women.
If men cannot suffer from misogyny, then—as trans women do suffer from misogyny—we must conclude that they are women.
Besides which, the problem you are describing—that the popular representation of trans women is rooted in misogyny—is genuine, but your conclusion—that trans women are responsible (and thus misogynistic—is a non-sequitur. The problem is with their representation: what society believes they are and expects them to be; not trans women themselves. This is a problem that negatively affects trans women.
Plus like these people love catching trans people in Catch-22’s like this
Look like your identified gender? Relying on sexist stereotypes.
Look like you always did, with some modifications? You’re not “really” trans and just trying to get attention.
Like, can you just admit you don’t want trans people to exist and go already?
As an anecdote, an example that’s stuck in my memory for years was a TERF complaining about trans women turning up to women’s spaces with unshaven legs, citing this as “proof” that they were “actually men”.
I didn’t realise op was a terf immediately because like, they straight up say “the common representation of transwomen” and that’s exactly what cis men think of us, and how they attempt to simultanesously demonise us in the media while sexualising us — see how many trans women on TV in my life are murdered sex workers on crime shows.
like you’re so close. you’re so damn close. you know how bad mainstream representation is for trans women, but then you decide it’s actually objectively correct, that it must a perfect representation of us, made by us.
Uh, that’s how transwomen represent themselves, fam. Real life mimics fiction just as fiction mimics real life. 🙂
do you think kirby’s skin is moist when you touch him
or do you think its like rubbery? like an inflated balloon?
if you stabbed him would he pop or bleed?
Do you take constructive criticism on your posts ???
all respectable scientists must accept peer review on their research findings
Due to the nature of kirby’s inflation (inhalation of the air or other airborne elements) Kirby’s anatomy would only make sense to be a large bodily chasm much like the human lung to capture and hold the atmospheric area inside of him.
Kirby also floats, suggesting either A) he is lighter than the atmospheric pressure and gravity affecting him and can propel himself through the atmosphere or B) he is strong enough to conteract those forces. Both of which suggest Kirby is not fat or excess skin, but muscle. He is also depicted as smooth and without imperfections as if to suggest that inflated kirby has no stretching of his skin. Smaller kirby and Larger kirby can have different volumes, indicating Kirby has excess skin which can retract into his body when not in use. Which would be able to reside in the chasm of Kirby, that is contracted and relaxed.
So while he may be soft and squishy when deflated, I think Kirby when he has taken in air is much more like a basketball, firm and stiff thanks to the extension (possible hyperextension) of his muscles. Kirby is softer when not inflated due to the relaxtaion of his muscles although the moistness is a variable I am unable to comprehend at this time.
Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk this is why kirby would actually just eat the knife if you tried to stab him
Excuse Me, He is Soft Just Like Marshmallows
and possibly, Slightly Powdery Just Like Marshmallows
the idea of people having to be ‘useful’ is just so gross, like people do not exist to be used
having to produce something and have a use is a capitalist ideal and not an intrinsic part of humanity
just by being alive you are human and you are worth something and you can never be useless
this applies to animals as well
“Having to like DO THINGS is SO OPPRESSIVE. No one had to like DO THINGS before evil capitalism. In ancient times food, water, and shelter just existed and everything was taken care of for me”
Guess what happened to people who didn’t do things before capitalism? They died. Cause if you weren’t hunting, gathering, or useful in some aspect of nature. You were killed, died or starvation, dehydration, or exposure.
Being useful is literally part of our biology. Fucking moron. You pull some idea out of your ass because you literally don’t want to get off your ass.
I’m not saying nobody should ever do things ever, I’m saying people don;t have to produce to an arbitrary standard in order to prove their right to live
And if you really think disabled people deserve to die if we can’t ‘contribute’ or be useful in a way you approve of then congrats youre a fucking monster
actually there’s significant evidence in terms of Neolithic burials that disabled people who would not have been able to hunt for themselves (the archaeological evidence mostly shows mobility disabilities because it’s visible in the bone record) were well fed and cared for by their communities
so the “people like you would have been left to die” argument isn’t just cruel and violently ableist, it’s extremely historically inaccurate and based off of projecting modern prejudice on prehistoric cultures
sources because I’m on my laptop now!
note: in the neolithic era, a person in their 40s or 50s would be considered elderly
Our society continually propagates the myth that our ancestors’ lives were miserable, but the truth is human beings figured out how to live cooperatively and humanely a long time ago. Really the agricultural revolution fucked everything up.
Cuz clearly people only died and starved before capitalism
Anthropologically, proof of fixed femur fractures in ancient hominids shows that is one of the signs of civilized people– caring for the sick and injured is a cornerstone of civilization. So lmao go fuck yourself with the injured and disabled died thousands of years ago if they couldn’t help provide for their group.
Stop turning ancient hominids into these cruel “survival of the fittest” images. Especially cause that isn’t even what is meant by that phrase.
Even Neanderthals cared for their sick and injured. Which says a lot about those who are against the idea.
Another point: back in the ancient times, pretty much ALL work that got done was work of the “if it doesn’t get done, you starve” variety, perhaps embellished a bit by the “if it doesn’t get done, you’re uncomfortable” sort. Work was vital, yes, but all the work that was vital was vital.
Nowadays, on the other hand, we have excess, and waste, and an absolute shitpot of arbitrary work that gets shoved into the “necessary and vital” pile just because somebody else can make a buck off it, made as much off of cut corners and financial shenanigans as of anybody’s honest labor. Shitty Wal-Mart plastic pitchers and crap toys that capture attention and drop it just as fast, “fast fashion” that you wear twice and it falls apart, shiny chrome washer-dryers that are going to be replaced in five or ten years because planned obsolescence meets upgrade culture, and produce that gets rejected because it doesn’t look shiny and uniform and perfect.
If you’re a cashier, you have to stand even though you could do your job just as well sitting. A fast-food place throws out pounds of fries, empties the whole assembly-line of prepared food into the dumpster at the end of the night, and if you take any of it home to eat, that’s called stealing. Grocery stores throw out entire cartons of eggs because one out of twelve is cracked and lock their dumpsters so nobody can scavenge food from the tons of what’s thrown out still edible. Tech stores demand that unsold computers be destroyed with a sledgehammer before being thrown out, and all the labor that went into making it, assembling it, forming its component parts and mining its raw materials, is all wasted.
We can see this shit going on, we encounter it and sometimes we’re ordered to carry it out, in our workplaces that pay us shit, and let me tell you, there’s a hell of a difference between “if you don’t get the wheat harvested we’ll have no bread all winter” and “you need to spend the next eight hours cooking food so we can hold a profit after throwing a quarter of it in the garbage.” A multitude of people would benefit greatly if allowed to access that waste or allowed to not produce what’s likely going to be wasted.
It’s not that we want something for nothing–it’s that we want the stuff we’ve put work into creating to benefit us, or someone who could use it, and not see good work twisted into benefiting no one while still being demanded and still being underpaid.
If people in agrarian societies of the past starved it was frequently due to an uncontrollable act of nature (drought, flood, locusts, plague).
Now people starve because they don’t “produce” in an acceptable way for our capitalist system, which has a very narrow and limited definition of what being “useful” is, and because our corporate overlords would rather throw food away than feed someone who is starving.
We have enough food, but people are starving to death.
We have enough houses, but people are dying of exposure because they’re homeless.
We have enough medicine, but people are dying because they can’t afford to pay for it.
And we accept this as correct because we’ve been brainwashed that only “useful” i.e. “capitalist productive” people deserve to have food, shelter and healthcare.
That’s fucked up.
caring for the sick and injured is a cornerstone of civilization
I’ve used this in arguments for years. Those in need are never a drain on a society – but the way they are treated is the measure of one.
(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
This is…..some pretty gross accusations and more than one of your “receipts” is presented with a misleading description that shows you have a personal, petty agenda against this person. Seems like you’re mad they blocked you and that you didn’t understand them, and scrolling their blog there are a lot of explanations that say the opposite things of what you’re implying about them. Idk, this callout seems iffy and less about “warnings” than being vindictive to me
I would say that it is indeed a personal agenda! As personal preservation from a person that keeps on talking over transfems, and reinforces trans men’s male entitlement would be hard to not take personally!
And yeah like not all of these are straight up bigoted things.
But I am highly concerned with how this person keeps on writing really vague shit and trying to make misogyny about men with such desperation.
Like, I’d highly just advice people to stay away from this person instead of trying to excuse them, because this person is clearly in some kind of echo chamber of transmasc self-victimisation, and latches on to the “you all are using radfem rhetoric!” argument while using radfem rhetorics.
like look at this person’s blog. they’re clearly trying to shape trans men as having authority on misogyny. and i don’t know about you, but when they keep on insisting on crypto-radfem rhetorical use, they really should be analysing how their words and actions might be do similar things when they pull the same shit terfs do!
if you say misogyny is about trans men, maybe you should analyse what that says about trans women. how do trans women not have male privilege within a frame where trans men and all dfab people are targets of misogyny, and should be the authority of it.
this all isn’t an attack jfc. it’s concern. because this person is making no effort to look at their own words and how their words carry implications.. even when multiple transfems independently go “hey.. what the fuck.. have you maybe thought that the rhetorics you’re spreading carries a transmisogynistic undertone”.
Please stop saying “transfem” when you mean trans women, for frik’s sake
Hi I’m transfeminine and affected by transmisogyny but also not a trans woman
I got blocked for this reply omfg
hey hang on. my op was literally about gaypeachs refusing to address transmisogyny that impacts nonbinaries. literally their rhetoric was specifically aimed at ‘fem nbs’ with no regard for transmisogyny or power dynamics. limiting the subject to binary trans women would just make my post incomprehensible, and is basically the same as the problem this post was meant to address; erasure of transmisogyny aimed at non-women/non-binaries. gross.
(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
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.
as much as the crowd dedicated to complaining about inconsistencies in children’s shows are the bane of my existence and i go out of my way to ignore everything they’ve ever said,
an episode of steven u came on tv and i thought “oh steven’s fat, this must be season 1″
this isn’t ‘he’s off model the animators can’t even draw!’, but they must have decided to change the model to slim him down from a clear portrayal of a fat kid to a more generic chibi looking design that isn’t clearly meant to look like any body type that exists in real life. it’s also gross how his design slims down roughly during when he starts to get a lot stronger and more capable with his powers. idk how much of this was conscious or not but i hate it and it’s so much more glaring every time I rewatch old eps
I mean he may be slimming down because now he went from not really doing anything to constantly going off and saving the world
That will make one lose a lot of weight
and here we have someone who’s scrolled through a full week of the fatphobia tag responding to every post with dismissal
And ill do it again
Because I’m
Petty
Translation for those who can’t read computer cursive: “ill do it again because I’m a loser with no life or friends who actually like me.”
Oof
You hit me right in the reality
Lemme swing back
A character losing a realistic amount of weight isn’t fatshaming
✨ Its basic human anatomy ✨
it’s character design. there’s no anatomy involved. especially not your shitty understanding of it because working out builds muscle. you get larger, even if you’re accounting for burnt fat. muscle adds weight. especially if we’re dealing with a child, who are constantly putting on fat and muscle. children grow, it’s their one job. a child losing weight is a clear sign they’re being starved no matter how much they work out.
do you know what show i’m talking about? are you going to argue that weight loss makes you shorter and your head double in size? this kid has a head to body ratio of 1:1, u going to tell me weight loss turns you anime?
What gets me about “the black pill” or “the dark enlightenment” is that while both of them encompass horribly harmful and inaccurate conclusions drawn about the world, they still are reactions to pressures that dudes feel on them… many of which are in some ways similar to pressures women and girls have grappled with for decades if not centuries. But most of us get it out of our system in like, 7th grade that we will never be as attractive to men as Megan Fox. Minus the horrifying entitlement to womens’ sex and bodies, the ‘incels vs. chad’ dynamic eerily mirrors the kind of emotional landscape of ‘me vs. The Other Slutty Girls’ where an immature girl projects her feelings of inadequacy, lack of confidence in her appearance, or awareness that the game is rigged in favor of unattainable ideals onto peers who may be superficially more successful or socially popular than herself. We recognize this narrative as an angry cry for help in younger girls. But we don’t recognize it at all in boys, or even think that feelings of inadequacy will police boys and cause them to strive harder to be strong men.
Girls become aware from a strikingly young age that society does not consider them objectively valuable (to differing degrees, based on race and other factors), that only a select few of them will fit the parameters of gender-coded success. But teen boys and even grown men seem to think ‘taking the pill’ and realizing these truths is novel. For the rest of us, the maturation stage dealing with it happened in early adolescence.
But most striking to me is that when faced with objectification, dehumanization, a bleak, almost existential theft of confidence and identity, girls (and those society coercively identifies as girls) go through some embarrassing phases, write some weird stories or draw weird things, explore their gender and sexuality, and overall get over it. Not without scarring or without serious psychological consequences. But despite some troubling attempted suicide statistics? We’re expected to get over it, step up our game, and move on.
When faced with the realization of even a fraction of the same kind of realization, a destiny of mediocrity and low inherent value, of their labor being pissed away into the void? Cis men become self-destructive, endorse reactionary politics, embrace fascism, ideate disaster scenarios where every Chad dies, withdraw from their friendships and social connections. They form whole communities and support groups dedicated to lingering at, and lamenting, this stage of their lives. We can laugh and frown at them, but it seems that no one takes opportunities away from them but themselves.
Women have known ‘the black pill’ since forever, the knowledge that everyone we meet sees us in terms of the value we can offer them personally, and for most of us that value is not going to be a lot. And yeah, I know there are some outlier sad girls who resort to extreme behaviors or certain radfem ideologies out there. But for the most part? Women haven’t been driven to fascism and pure seething misanthropic self-perpetuating hatred yet. Neither have trans men to my knowledge, most of which have lived alongside girls and observed girlhoods and misogyny up close. And specifically? Trans women probably experience the hopelessness and worthlessness society outlines as destiny most of all.
“Black pillers”, incels, and ‘the dark enlightenment’ are hopelessly crushed by things the teenage girls they mock carry around in their backpack on a daily basis.
trans people were added in later in the LGBT movement
straight trans people can call themselves gay
trans men can call themselves lesbians
cis lgbp should quit using the word cis in cishet and cis aroace, even though by doing so, you’d implicitly be kicking out trans/nb people
aces have a greater right to LGBT spaces than trans people do, because asexuality is a sexuality and trans isn’t
defending TERFs from meanies who want them run over by a bus
trans people were added in later in the LGBT movement
straight trans people can call themselves gay, or how they can’t be straight
trans men can call themselves lesbians
us cis lgbp should quit using the word cis in cishet and cis aroace, implicitly kicking out trans/nb people, and also ignoring that straight trans people don’t oppress us cis lgbp
aces have a greater right to lgbt spaces than trans people do, because asexuality is a sexuality and trans isn’t
defending TERFs from meanies who want them run over by a bus
(context for above screenshot, so you can see for yourself that slimecourse was telling off a TERF)
exclusionists pointing out how SAM can be used in transphobic way (but if someone can actually find someone using the SAM in a transphobic way, go ahead and add on)
pitting lg vs. bt, erasing trans/nb gay and lesbian people
uninucleus callout (who I’ve heard still kept kept their popularity after it came to light they were a TERF)
Also, thank you to @fuckradfems for double-checking these screenshots, @discoursepsychic for suggesting a screenshot
hey um, when I said a call-out post? i meant a call-out post and not this useless sack of crap i have to sift through. are you trying to be unhelpful?
as i have already plainly explained, we actually did have to fight for trans and bi recognition. this is basic, basic history, and not ‘erasing trans people from the movement’, it’s literally basically recognising that we have been already erased from the movement by cis people. for the love of fuck i can’t actually simplify this anymore. Trans people start movement. Gay movement decides it wants nothing to do with trans people. trans people fight this. the letter T is added so that doesn’t happen again. are we clear on this
the second screenshot actually goes into this in more detail than i can? there’s literally nothing incorrect here? what are you even calling out here? that we’re acknowledging trans erasure? do you want to call out someone for a goddamn history lesson? you get that what you’re doing here as a cis person is deliberately misleading right? there are young people who still remember the acronym before it included the T, considering this was a debate topic in the 90s and well into the 00s.
anonymous posts
@hookandcook says straight trans people can call themselves gay. i should point out hookandcook is, a gay trans person, but what the hell. hey dude, while straight trans people are queer for being trans, you can’t use gay and queer interchangeably like that. it’s pretty straightforward that it’s disrespectful to gay people for any straight people to call themselves gay.
alright! someone with an actual URL saying fucked up shit! this wasn’t so difficult was it? @rainbowgoddamnunicorn, who i can’t tag, great, but yeah what the fuck
the next anon is rubbish but they’re touching on something i’ve talked about, that trans people rarely have straight privilege even if they’re completely hetero because of the obscene kinds of hoops one has to jump through to be considered ‘straight’, so like, they’re being reductive but calling this anon transphobic… is a reach
all the callouts for saying trans men can be lesbians belong to @yall-aphobes-need-to-stop finally, it’s also literally up there on their blog admitting that they said it too. there’s also a bunch of callouts already in their url tag, so i suggest blocking them!
each and every single call out for policing cis people’s use of ‘cishet’ goes to trans people! aphobic-hau and babblingqueerace and transkrem! they’re all fucking trans! you’re calling out trans people for literally fucking calling out cis people… in a way you don’t like! you can call me out for this too, i stand by this. cis people need to… actually fucking listen to trans people on this. honestly. cis people labelling their oppressors as ‘cishets’ instead of as fucking straights only serves to distance themselves from their own cis privilege. and like, in the post i already linked to, sometimes trans people can actually have straight privilege? adding ‘cis’ doesn’t actually let us have a nuanced discussion about the dynamics trans people have towards straightness. and if this really erases trans people, you really have to explain to me how? i’m fucking trans and i can’t actually make sense of your complaint here.
hey quick aside if you crop out the URL on a post? it’s fucking useless thanks
more for yall-aphobes-need-to-stop, as well as @shybiviolet, hello you should let people be mad a terfs, because terfs are fucking trash, okay, cool
under ‘pitting lg vs bt’ you’ve put in that basic history lesson from before in again, i think you should read it actually? like what do you not like about it, the insinuation that bi people have faced biphobia? that cis people have been transphobic? nothing here actually demonises anyone, it’s just talking about the community’s history with respectability politics.
hey callout post for all these anons for being homophobic! you know these are completely fucking useless right. because they’re anonymous. like Barack Obama could have sent them for all the fuck i know. you know you can send these to yourself, that’s why they’re completely useless as evidence for anything.
and @next-venoms who i think you’ll find is a fucking guro blog? and they could have worded it in a less divisive way but, i think i really agree with the sentiment? is this really the hill you want to die on. i can’t speak for biphobia, but you know cis people abuse trans people in LGBTI/queer spaces all the time right? the LGBTI community was built on trans women’s backs.. the only thing problematic here is that it erases that bi people have as much cis privilege as gays and lesbians. but sure, let’s all call out this problematic goreporn blog
so. let’s tally up everyone who actually parroted anything even remotely simialar to what terfs have ever said;
you could have just given me the reciepts for those two. this was the most amazingly frustrating thing you could have done here. you could have at least figured out for yourself that transkrem, who has trans in their goddamn username, actually has a much more valid opinion on the word cishets than you do.. if you want me to call out anything ever again, you can at least make it readable. and not call out trans people for talking about trans issues and calling it TERF rhetoric. that’s literally a polite, basic minimum for these kinds of posts right.
oh and also can you do me a favour? it’s to never speak about transphobia ever again. you have no idea how to use that word and it’s not your fucking discourse card. literally fucking consult me or another trans person first before you make another post this useless and misleading again.
Not all of those screenshots are mine, and some other person cropped out the op of those posts. I literally consulted a trans person when compiling those posts. I also interpreted stuff like the T was added later as in trans people weren’t always there and were added later to the community, and promoting the LG vs BT split, which ignores trans gay people and that cis bi people can still be transphobic. Like, do inclusionists think all LG people are cis? There are also trans people saying that it’s 100% okay for us to use cishet, so your point? Those anons are obviously inclusionists and shows that transphobic sentiment is there. I’m not sure what else I could do there? Does anyone else care to join in?
yeah no matter how many times you, a cis person, willfully misinterpret what trans people have been saying to you, it doesn’t somehow make it TERF rhetoric. don’t repeat this to me again. i’m a trans lesbian so of course i’m not standing by this bullshit where you think i’m saying ‘all LG people are cis’, and neither did the screenshots you gave me that were clealy from other trans people.
🍓🧀 (archive) 