The cishet distraction

queeranarchism:

queeranarchism:

felixedwardrocketship:

queeranarchism:

Cisgender LGB people: I see a lot of you speaking about ‘the cishets’ with some kind of bitter taste behind it but never acknowledging your own cisgender privilege and how much transphobia there is in the LGBT community and I want you to know that you’re not fooling anyone. 

Ewwww… cis people using the term cishet like that is awful, why would they do that? It’s a term for people who are both queer and trans to talk about our oppression, not for cis queers to distance themselves from their transphobia and transmisogyny.

Yeah, the reasons:

– 

to distance themselves from their transphobia and transmisogyny. 

– to replace the way they have talked about ‘the straights’ as a coherent group when they didn’t want to consider that other people might face any kind of oppression

Pretending that ‘lgbt’ and ‘cishet; are coherent blocks that have all experiences in common is a convenient way to ignore their own transphobia, transmisogyny and cisgender privilege all while providing a tool to exclude people. 

Vocal acephobes do this the most, accusing asexual and aromantic people of being ‘cishet’, resisting any kind of solidarity with other issue groups because it would bring the lgbt community in contact with ‘the cishets’. 

It’s gross and it is so obviously holding lgbt/queer movements back, keeping them trapped in debates about who is ‘cishet’ when they so desperately need to be building a strong wide resistance to the rise of neofascism. 

I wanted to add:

if you create a strong enough ‘us vs. the evil irredeemable cishets’ mentality

this can be used to avoid all accountability ever. 

Don’t like being confronted with your racism? Target all your racism at a cishet POC who did something homophobic once. If a POC from the lgbt community calls you out on it you can call them ‘divisive’, you can accuse them of collaborating with the evil ‘cishets’, you can ask them why they hate gay people, etc. etc. 

If enough white lgbt people with a similar mindset support you, you can create a culture where racism is okay as long as the target it not lgbt, and this will drive away persky lgbt POC who might talk about white privilege and other uncomfortable topics or who might at some point catch you just being plain old racist to everyone. 

Don’t wanna be confronted with your ableism? ditto. 

bitterlesbiangrandma:

I had a friend tell me once that they envy me having a terminal condition because I don’t have to figure out my future.

And like. I get depression and fear, and adulting is fucking hard, and sometimes when I’m really sad I think this too.

But please don’t tell your spoonie friends you envy them being sick, and not going to school, and “sitting at home watching Netflix whole days everyday”. We’re ILL. We’re in a lot of pain. This sitting in bed whole days is fun when it’s a cool activity to do, but it stops being fun when it’s a necessity everyday and you want to do things but you CANT.

And the thing is, we’re having to figure out our future too. It’s just for you figure is college and job and happy relationships.
For us it’s our condition getting worse, our parents aging and so us having to find caretakers for us when they’re gone, and ultimately a lot of sadness and then dying.

We’re both scared and I’m not playing pain Olympics here. I’m just here to tell you that sometimes it’s good to shut up.

pustluk:

iloveradfems:

pustluk:

iloveradfems:

surfin-terf:

pustluk:

surfin-terf:

vulvacrat:

brighterthanbombs:

vulvacrat:

brighterthanbombs:

vulvacrat:

pustluk:

radical feminism, 1973: one is not born a woman
trans women: hi
radical feminism, 1979: jesus god not like that

god y’all are so obtuse, this isn’t what de beauvoir meant in the slightest. she meant ‘women are shaped into their social role through upbringing and socialisation’ not ‘women make a conscious choice to behave like their designated social role’. if anything this disproves trans ideology and the whole ‘i’m a woman inside’ argument as it states that passive interactions throughout your lifetime shape your womanhood, not some kind of innate emotional feeling. read a book.

hi i’ve read the entirety of the second sex and you’re very wrong

wait are you disagreeing with me or op i’m so confused

with op!!! sorry lmao definitely with the op. i hate how that quote keeps getting taken out of context

oh good lol

i’ve also studied the second sex extensively, and beauvoir is unambiguously referring to socialization. sorry OP

do yall realize youre literally making my points for me and the saying the exact same things as just about every vein of contemporary trans theory since at least, like, the mid nineties or are u just being…obtuse

i don’t possibly see how any of this is making your points for you. your original post seemed to suggest that the ideology of transwomen is totally consistent with feminist ideas (such as beauvoir’s), and their ideology is not consistent with feminist ideas at all.

With “no one is born a woman” she was referring exactly to GENDER, to socialization, not sex.
Stop lying about the meaning of that quote for your own interests.And, for you, aren’t transwomen born women?

no. every contemporary account of gender created by trans women in the outsider theory community–the only place we’re actually welcome–holds that gender is a fully social process. whether you want to look at material feminism, trans material feminism specifically, trans lesbian feminism, trans separatism, or gender nihilism (a school of thought from outsider theorists that has actually, like, been taught at multiple gender studies departments), every last one of them treats gender as socialized (since, like, 1994)–which you would know if you bothered to engage with trans women versed in theory and hadn’t gathered all your information about our alleged self-conception from buzzfeed articles and pop liberalism’s approach to transness.

moreover, if you’d actually read the work from de beauvoir, you’d remember that the first thing she writes in that chapter of the second sex is this:

[B]elief…in a ‘prehistory’ when women created civilization (because of a biological predisposition) while the coarse and brutal men hunted (because of a biological predisposition) is symmetrical with the biologizing interpretation of history produced now by the class of men….Furthermore, not only is this conception still imprisoned in the  categories of sex (woman and man), but it holds onto the idea that the capacity to give birth (biology) is what defines a woman…By doing this…[n]ot only to we naturalize history, but also consequently we naturalize the social phenomena which express our oppression, making change impossible.

from its inception, the party line of the second wave was that hearkening to essentialist accounts of dimorphic, inherent, mutually antithetical sex reproduces the conditions of women’s oppression. it was only in the late seventies–after the stonewall riots had sparked a huge surge of radical gay and trans activism throughout the decade, after biomedical transition had become a widespread possibility for the first time since the 30s, and after the benjamin standards (the product of a white, heterosexual man and not the vulnerable trans people forced to navigate them in order to receive healthcare) were first published–that radical feminism finally made its mythopoetic appeal to sex essentialism. y’all were so desperate to swerve around us that you inverted one of the core tenets of the second wave and absolutely shattered the feminist movement in the process.

lesbian feminism, central to the second wave up through the early seventies with wittig’s le corps lesbien, was forced into its own vein by the panic around “male alignment” y’all created that disenfranchised gnc women–ultimately precipitating the separatist ethos of the 80s. mythopoetic cultural feminism split from post-structural feminism and started an ideological war that persists to this day. the third wave was finally able to regain some ground when crenshaw introduced intersectionality in 89 and marxist feminism started gaining a broader platform–but y’alls legacy is setting the feminist movement back by at least two decades, splintering a 30+ year old party line into fragments which have still not been reunified, and jeopardizing the healthcare, political rights, social situation, and physical safety of generations of trans women–all because you couldn’t be bothered to understand that your (totally justified! we’re totally with you on this!) objections to the benjaminian concept of transness were the product of a straight white male practitioner and not the generation of trans women his antifeminist, antigay medicalized hoopjumping left traumatized.

Mate, you’re just trying to get me confused.I read the book, I know what she meant, she didn’t made a book focused on women’s social role and women’s oppression as some sort of proof that biological sex doesn’t exist.

Intersectionality is about the intersection of misogyny and racism, NOTHING to do with males.

Your far-fetched language essay is making it very difficult to get your point.Is that your intention? Throwing a bunch of disconected and questionable information around won’t change the fact that the only definiton for woman is human female and that women and men receive different socialization and are given different social roles because of their sex, it is the factual truth.Her point is that women aren’t born feminine, docile, submissive, they are taught to be that way, and if a male presents that way it doesn’t mean he’s a woman.That’s it.

Feminism is and will always be about females, because women are oppressed on the basis of being female, not over some ridiculous concept of gender people identify in and out.Patriarchy is about males oppressing females for our reproductive and sexual possibility to sustain a economic system that is based on heirs and a large working class.

Make your opinion more compact.I’m not willing to read a full bullshit essay.

mate. here is a sparknotes version:

(a) you’re being ahistorical;

(b) your concept of trans women originated with a straight white heterosexual male endocrinologist and his work in the 70s, not from us;

(c-i) your concept of trans women pits the full weight of academia against the self-descriptions of poor, older, mostly nonwhite trans women who have never had the privilege and luxury of stepping foot in a gender studies department;

(c-ii) you haven’t read the work of any trans theorists;

(d) the third wave, initiated by crenshaw, re-shifted focus onto nonwhite, gay, and eventually trans women–something y’all had never thought to do;

(e) you’re apparently unwilling to read so much as 4 paragraphs explaining why (see a) you’re being ahistorical and (see c) your ideology is irrelevant to contemporary trans theory;

(f) you need to remove your head from whatever orifice you’ve currently got it lodged in, generally;

(g) i recommend astroglide.

gay rights vs gay liberation

theangrybi:

autismserenity:

I keep coming across pieces about the U.S. “LGBT” movement’s history that talk about how, during the 70s especially, one core idea of the movement was that gender and sexuality would, should, get blown wide open. 

That ultimately pretty much everyone was bisexual underneath; that gender itself was a big nonbinary mess; and everyone would be able to be their true bisexual, often genderqueer self after the revolution. We wouldn’t have or need the gender binary anymore. 

This was a much more natural belief at the time, because gay and lesbian and bi and ace had been thought of as essentially different genders. Because “normal” was two binary sexes, with two corresponding binary genders, which were attracted to each other, and would act on that attraction to make more little normal people. This was the function of society, the thing that gave women any value, the whole point of life.

From “Identity and Ideas: Strategies for Bisexuals,” an essay by bi activist Liz Highleyman in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queeries, and Visions (1995), which I need to quote from more extensively but not rn:

“As the social movements of the early 1970s fell apart or lost their radical edge in the 1980s, the gay liberation movement, now known as the gay and lesbian movement, followed suit.”

This sentence puts it in a nutshell, I think. There was a really concrete shift, from radical “liberation” from the system for everyone, to acceptance from the system for these two groups.

“There was a growing emphasis on an identity politics model that likened gays to oppressed racial and ethnic minorities. Sexual identity was increasingly seen as an immutable characteristic without sweeping social or political ramifications. The movement became more focused on civil rights and assimilation into mainstream society.”

 It wasn’t an accident, that shift away from the overlapping bi/trans/intersex politics and bi/trans/intersex paradigm*. It was extremely deliberate.

It must have seemed like an easier sell to the straight world, which I can understand. I’m sure a lot of people thought that this strategy would benefit everyone.

But not only does it leave many of our issues completely ignored or actively erased, it’s also a model that can never work for us.

This just kind of jelled for me for the first time, reading this. It’s much harder to see if you don’t know about both models, at least for me. I tend to believe the “no no, we’re for you too!” without thinking about how and why that hasn’t been working.

The civil rights/assimilation model is very rooted in the whole idea that “the only thing that’s different about us is which gender we love!” It’s the we’re just like you model. It works pretty well for fitting-into-society stuff: marriage, health care, employment rights, military service, media representation. Stuff that straight people have, so they can go, “okay, I see how you’re like me, it seems unfair and terrible that you shouldn’t have these things too!”

It works really fucking badly for stuff where we are not like them.

The problem is actually that it works really fucking badly for stuff where we do not fit into the gender binary.

That’s the specific way the system demands that we Be Like Them. It treats everything else, everything that isn’t being a binary sex/gender and wanting a binary sex/gender, as a freakish and in-valid choice, and punishes us for it.

The only progress we’ve really seen is that sometimes, it’s not seen as a Bad Freakish Choice to want the “wrong” binary gender, and very occasionally, it’s not seen as a Bad Freakish Choice to be the “wrong” binary gender.

A lot of the trans movement’s progress has come from doing the same thing the gay and lesbian movement has done: “look at us, look how gender-normative and binary-gendered we are, look how we just want to be a normal gender and love a normal gender. Nothing threatening going on here!”

It works. I’m not going to knock that. People use this shit because they are fucking desperate and fearing for their lives.

But it also means those of us who can’t say “we’re just like normal people” become ballast.

You know: the stuff you throw overboard so your hot air balloon can take off.

I think this is what’s at the core of “ace discourse,” “sga discourse,” and all those other gatekeeping arguments. 

The system only, conditionally, grudgingly, gives certain rights, in some places, to the minority of us who have convincingly argued that we’re Just Like Them. It is exceedingly clear to those people that mixing with non-approved groups puts not only those limited civil rights, but also the entire model used to win them, in danger. 

It’s a choice. We all face it. If you identify more with the need for all those normal rights – or with the oppressions around being, or being into, into the wrong binary gender – or you just see that this model is working for some people and you want it to work for you – then you’re likely to cast your lot with the binary-gender-based “gay rights” model, which means you’re likely to take a “gatekeeping” tack. 

If you identify more with the need for total freedom from the rules of the binary gender system, for whatever reason – and you’re not put off by the fact that we don’t have a working political model around that – then you’re likely to cast your lot with the “gay liberation” model, which means you’re likely to take the “radical inclusion” tack that’s inherent to that model. 

* (I don’t think there was an intersex movement at the time; intersex people are still incredibly silenced by not only the media but actively, intentionally, by the entire medical industry. But it is an explicitly intersex-friendly and very ace/aro-friendly model, in a way that the existing model has definitely not been.)

This. This right here is so fucking important to me. As an intersex, aromantic, bisexual, genderqueer person….I feel this keenly.

Its why I’ve felt so disconnected from the community that calls itself “LGBT.” Its why I’ve felt exceedingly more comfortable with the communities that receive backlash from the LGBT – the mogai and queer communities.

The entire model, the obsession, the focus of the LGBT on just “homophobia and transphobia,” or “SGA and trans people,” is only “historical” up to a point. The rejection of the word “queer” and the rejection of calling our community “the queer community” (and any other similarly accepting, non strictly defined community labels) goes hand in hand in all of this.

Its a clear and purposeful prioritization of community members who are binary; of members who are exactly everything I am not.

And to further the evidence that its entirely political, its pretty much entirely western. Every single existing friend I have in the community from other countries express some sort of bafflement at the behavior and treatment of us “less acceptable” members. They get confused when we talk about a-specs or bisexuals not being accepted, because that’s only an issue over here, with the “acceptable” members who have decided we don’t benefit their movement.

But I am so thankful for someone else pointing this out and showing evidence because I am not the best with words, but its something I actively experience and have had to deal with, without the proper knowledge and words to protest my treatment completely.

The current model the LGBT uses is complete and utter bullshit. Its a community the professes to care equally about all of us – but has no problem using methods and tactics that throw us under the bus, because they work for some of them.

If a community is going to have solidarity, then the methods that prioritize certain members while hurting others needs to be condemned. No amount of success for the few justifies harming the other members, lest you give up the pretense of being equally supportive of everyone.

Which is also why I think the mogai and queer communities have gotten under such heavy fire. Its what we specifically get targeted for – we equally support all members, which is seen as unacceptable. We use a completely different model – the rejection of the binary completely, anti assimilation, which undermines everything they’re trying for. We don’t shirk from embracing and displaying our blatant rebellion and differences from a pericisheteronormative society, which effectively ruins the chances of gold star gays getting the community seen as “just like one of them.”

Its why there’s been such disgust displayed at the idea of being associated with “weird, special snowflake” genders, its why the attraction TO those genders has been so heavily scrutinized and invalidated. Its why “mogai” can be thrown around like an insult, its why we get mocked as “radikweers.” Laughing at those of us that dare to fully abandon the binary, pushing us to the fringes of the community and denying us voices, words, resources, and acknowledgement, and actively denying our existence and validity this way is a frantic attempt to save that model that prioritizes them; and they believe doing so will put them in a better, more acceptable light with the rest of society that treats us the same.

Its why respectability politics has become just as much of a danger to me as pericisheteronormativity is.

And this gives me words to express how I feel about it all. “Anti gay rights, pro gay liberation.”

homojabi:

Reminder that “nonbinary women” includes transfeminine folks & trans women who identify that way too and if you’re making the assumption that “nonbinary women” can only be non-transfeminine/trans women you’re alienating a huge group of people from their identity. I see people always assuming that nonbinary women were assigned she/her pronouns or that they can bind and take T (not even that they do but that they can) and while that describes some nonbinary women/their experiences it’s doesn’t describe many others. Stop alienating and ignoring the experience of nonbinary trans women and transfeminine people.

ihateyoufightme:

the-ace-of-weasels:

yall-aphobes-need-to-stop:

I got someone harassing me on messenger trying to tell me that the community has ALWAYS BEEN LGBT ever since Stonewall and that Martha P Johnson was the trans woman who started it all

First off, it was Marsha P Johnson.

Secondly, despite the fact that Marsha was the one to start the fight, despite the fact that trans people have been fighting since day one, the trans community was not considered a part of the movement until the 90’s. Many people in The Gay Rights Movement said similar things about trans people as they do now about cisace people: “they don’t experience same sex attraction, therefore they don’t belong!”

It is NOT trans erasure to acknowledge that our efforts within the community weren’t properly recognized, and that we weren’t given a letter in the community until relatively recently. It is being aware of our history, our past. It is knowing how the sins of our past are repeating themselves with a new target.

Also this person intentionally misgendered me so they can fuck right the hell off.

maybe it’s just me, but it seems a bit transphobic to brush the issues the trans community has had in being fully acknowledged as part of the community under the rug. 

it’s basically denying the lateral aggression the trans community has had to deal with (and still does somewhat since we still have movements to drop the T come up every now and then and some other stuff as well) as well as erasing the efforts the trans community to be acknowledged. if they can tell us we can’t talk about it because it’s bad then they can eventually pretend it never happened which can further their whole lie that “right from the beginning it’s been one big happy family fighting against homophobia and transphobia.”

Reminder that Stonewall was where trans women gathered because they weren’t welcome in gay establishments of the time

violence committed by cis LGB people against trans people isn’t lateral aggression though. cis and trans people aren’t ever, ever on equal footing so ‘lateral violence’ is a wildly misinformed phrase here