wetpinkorthodoxy:

I’m sick to death of seeing right wing “free speech” justifications for dangerous bigoted notions. The Guardian today has another transmisogynist clutching her pearls at the exclusion of a TERF from an event on private grounds. A large part of the column is dedicated to pretending that TERFs are being excluded because some of them are lesbians.

I’m done with this alright? I’m making a commitment to find alternative news sources and it won’t be easy but there’s stuff out there if you look hard enough.

Political culture has messed us up and made us incapable of seeing bigotry when it’s staring us in the face. People need to realise there is no difference between long articulate columns that articulate transmisogyny and outright hate speech. Whilst left wingers, trans women, people of colour and many other marginalised people are being policed on their behaviour (how dare you not make friends with Tories???), people are publishing hate speech in the mainstream press under the guise of “sensible conversation.”

It’s not about freedom of speech it’s about the accountability that should come with having a huge platform. If you’re not going to use it responsibly I’m gonna block you out.

The extraordinary thing about that column is that the author quoted the Beard Society – “I’m sorry but we’ve decided not to host you. I too believe in freedom of expression, however Peterhouse is as much a home as it is a college. The welfare of our students in this instance has to come first.” – and then went on simply flatly to deny that statement. She didn’t engage with it, just blithely waved it away with the assertion that someone wielding the birth assignment of a vulnerable group against them was “not exactly a preacher of hate”. That’s not how you persuade an audience, that’s how you talk when you believe your position to be so obvious as to not be worth explaining.

Absolutely pathetic. Not just bigoted, but garbage writing. The Guardian’s standards have never been so low.

So there was this study in which adults were shown a crying baby. Those who were told the baby was a boy interpreted the baby’s emotion as anger. Those who were told the baby was a girl interpreted the baby’s emotion as being upset.

Confirmation bias is when people only acknowledge information that supports their biases, or twists information that does not into information that does.

So whenever someone says “trans women are acting according to male socialization” or characterizes anything a trans woman does as being “male” keep that bit about the babies in mind, and confirmation bias.

For some people trans women can do literally anything and it is perceived as somehow stemming from a fictional essential ~maleness~.

I recall snowflakeespecial, for example, linking two webcomics. One was of a cis woman celebrating her breasts, and one was of a trans woman celebrating her breasts. These comics were very similar in presentation and both said basically the same thing. However, snowflakeespecial claimed that the two strips were obviously completely different because the one made by a cis woman was genuine, whereas the one made by a trans woman was evidence of autogynephilia.

This is also reflected when cis people know a woman is trans, they will interpret any behavior, any physical feature, anything to support the contention that said woman is obviously trans, even if they had no idea even moments before.

In short, the game is rigged. When TWERFs, when truscum, when trans women collaborators pull this shit, they’re not engaging honestly. They’re engaging in terms of “Trans women are men. Therefore everything they do is indicative of being men.”

This is also why they lose their shit when trans women refuse to comply with their perceptions, as happened last night.

The basic rule is, however, that trans women are not allowed to be authorities on our own experiences. Everything we say is debatable and simply being a trans woman makes one discreditable. Any attempt to step outside the very narrow, confining boxes that others have decided describe us is seen as an act of aggression.

For that matter, any attempt to assert boundaries is seen as an act of aggression.

canmom:

if you ‘defend’ trans women by accusing twefs of ~disrespecting our identities~ or whatever, you’re basically doing the twefs’ work for them.

respond with materialism, talk about how women are constituted as a class regulated by sexual violence and how this works in the same ways for cis and trans women, talk about how twef ideology exposes us to greater sexual violence and death, talk about how ‘biological sex’ is ideology that maintains gender and discuss the actual complexities, etc. etc.

but don’t make it about ‘identity’ please because not only is that easy for them to ridicule, even if it’s accepted it still makes trans women into lesser/fake women.

borderingpunk:

clitcheese:

thenannystate:

borderingpunk:

Liberal trans women… stop. Radicalize. c’mon. We ain’t going nowhere by praising Laverne, Caitlynn, Manning, etc.

Celebrities help but tbh, the last three examples are kind of a poor element to pick from. Chelsea did suffer a lot for exposing war crimes (something she shouldnt have been arrested for, she was doing good). Laverne is just bathing in money by tokenizing herself and selling out. She’s an amazing actress, but she’s a capitalist after all. Caitlynn, well. She’s anti gay marriage and supports Trump, what else can I say.

Laura Jane Grace is a great icon, but as much as I love her, we have to stop idolizing trans women. I know, i feel so connected too, but it keeps pushing the idea of “oh trans people = money” by corporations, networks and the rest.

Look at pride for fucks sake. It started as a riot, expanded as a parade of celebration; and now it has fucking sponsors like banks, law firms, etc. By not radicalizing, we let the system use our identities as merchandise for the curious. Or in the other spectrum, to cause outcry therefore making more money.

Same goes to pop feminism. Fuck Hillary (Warmongerer), Fuck all the “feminist” actresses promoting non intersectional feminism (and being terfy at times). That’s how we get Laci Green’s.

LIBERALISM ALLOWS FASCISM AND IMPERIALISM TO SPREAD.

Get fucking Laverne, Chelsea, and Laura’s names out of your mouth, and dont you dare compare them to laci green, caitlyn jenner, or hillary. Like, in what universe does this make sense???

Look, you don’t seem like a bad person. Your heart is in the right place even if your head is up your ass. But you need to understand that accusing everyone of being liberals with…seemingly no sense behind it.

“we have to stop idolizing trans women“ isn’t something who’s actually thought about their stance could write… capitalist trans women maybe but you’ve still put a republican trump supporter on a list with an openly socialist whistle blower.

and even then, are Laverne Cox and LJG capitalists for appearing in a TV show and making music respectively? Neither of them have ‘sold out’ or whatever you’re accusing them of. You’re acting like the more radical option is for trans women to stay completely invisible and not appear in media. you’re acting like those two are capitalist sell-outs for just having jobs. fuck “bathing in money” i haven’t seen Laverne in a second role? do you think it would be more radical if there were no succesful trans women? would it be better if you couldn’t name any of us that aren’t in poverty?

Transmysoginy? lol. critiquing someone for their actions is now bigotted.

I’m a trans woman. I am in no point being transmysoginist. get your terminologies straight. I’m making a remark on the actions of such trans public people.

and could everyone stop saying I said shit about Laura? All I do is praise her for the work she’s done. For fuck’s sake. She hasnt sold out, well the band did for a while when they were on Warner Brothers but the bands gone back to their punk roots. So stop putting words in my text that arent there.

this is still textbook transmisogyny though. you said straight up ‘stop idolizing trans women’ like, regardless of their political ideology or anything. you can understand how someone might interpret that as, a statement harmful to trans women.

apparently you’re calling chelsea a capitalist and , just as bad as the miliatary she committed treason against so like…. you’re being wilfully ignorant at this point she’s against capitalism and the military industrial complex it’s right on her twitter? you get that assuming a bunch of trans women are liberal scum despite their actual views. it’s bad right. like even from another trans woman, it’s pretty suspect.

thenannystate:

borderingpunk:

Liberal trans women… stop. Radicalize. c’mon. We ain’t going nowhere by praising Laverne, Caitlynn, Manning, etc.

Celebrities help but tbh, the last three examples are kind of a poor element to pick from. Chelsea did suffer a lot for exposing war crimes (something she shouldnt have been arrested for, she was doing good). Laverne is just bathing in money by tokenizing herself and selling out. She’s an amazing actress, but she’s a capitalist after all. Caitlynn, well. She’s anti gay marriage and supports Trump, what else can I say.

Laura Jane Grace is a great icon, but as much as I love her, we have to stop idolizing trans women. I know, i feel so connected too, but it keeps pushing the idea of “oh trans people = money” by corporations, networks and the rest.

Look at pride for fucks sake. It started as a riot, expanded as a parade of celebration; and now it has fucking sponsors like banks, law firms, etc. By not radicalizing, we let the system use our identities as merchandise for the curious. Or in the other spectrum, to cause outcry therefore making more money.

Same goes to pop feminism. Fuck Hillary (Warmongerer), Fuck all the “feminist” actresses promoting non intersectional feminism (and being terfy at times). That’s how we get Laci Green’s.

LIBERALISM ALLOWS FASCISM AND IMPERIALISM TO SPREAD.

Get fucking Laverne, Chelsea, and Laura’s names out of your mouth, and dont you dare compare them to laci green, caitlyn jenner, or hillary. Like, in what universe does this make sense???

Look, you don’t seem like a bad person. Your heart is in the right place even if your head is up your ass. But you need to understand that accusing everyone of being liberals with…seemingly no sense behind it.

thenannystate:

borderingpunk:

Liberal trans women… stop. Radicalize. c’mon. We ain’t going nowhere by praising Laverne, Caitlynn, Manning, etc.

Celebrities help but tbh, the last three examples are kind of a poor element to pick from. Chelsea did suffer a lot for exposing war crimes (something she shouldnt have been arrested for, she was doing good). Laverne is just bathing in money by tokenizing herself and selling out. She’s an amazing actress, but she’s a capitalist after all. Caitlynn, well. She’s anti gay marriage and supports Trump, what else can I say.

Laura Jane Grace is a great icon, but as much as I love her, we have to stop idolizing trans women. I know, i feel so connected too, but it keeps pushing the idea of “oh trans people = money” by corporations, networks and the rest.

Look at pride for fucks sake. It started as a riot, expanded as a parade of celebration; and now it has fucking sponsors like banks, law firms, etc. By not radicalizing, we let the system use our identities as merchandise for the curious. Or in the other spectrum, to cause outcry therefore making more money.

Same goes to pop feminism. Fuck Hillary (Warmongerer), Fuck all the “feminist” actresses promoting non intersectional feminism (and being terfy at times). That’s how we get Laci Green’s.

LIBERALISM ALLOWS FASCISM AND IMPERIALISM TO SPREAD.

Get fucking Laverne, Chelsea, and Laura’s names out of your mouth, and dont you dare compare them to laci green, caitlyn jenner, or hillary. Like, in what universe does this make sense???

Look, you don’t seem like a bad person. Your heart is in the right place even if your head is up your ass. But you need to understand that accusing everyone of being liberals with…seemingly no sense behind it.

“we have to stop idolizing trans women“ isn’t something who’s actually thought about their stance could write… capitalist trans women maybe but you’ve still put a republican trump supporter on a list with an openly socialist whistle blower.

and even then, are Laverne Cox and LJG capitalists for appearing in a TV show and making music respectively? Neither of them have ‘sold out’ or whatever you’re accusing them of. You’re acting like the more radical option is for trans women to stay completely invisible and not appear in media. you’re acting like those two are capitalist sell-outs for just having jobs. fuck “bathing in money” i haven’t seen Laverne in a second role? do you think it would be more radical if there were no succesful trans women? would it be better if you couldn’t name any of us that aren’t in poverty?

lesbian separatist dog whistle.

patrexes:

muggle-the-hat:

betterbemeta:

dykeastraea:

betterbemeta:

Reminder that “compulsory heterosexuality” as a term was coined by

Adrienne

Rich, a contributor to the infamous TERF book The Transsexual Empire.

Wait how is compulsory heterosexuality a terf thing. I’ve never heard that ? (I’ve barely heard anything about the term in general though so.)

The informal concept that we are all compelled by society to be heterosexual is real and important. But the phrase/language use of “compulsory heterosexuality” was coined or at least popularized by Adrienne Rich in her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, which was extremely sex-essentialist and included stuff like… a mother nursing her female child as a lesbian experience. Or a nurse caring for a female elder a lesbian experience. Even if not all lesbian experiences are sexual, that’s kind of getting into a sketchy area (is caring for a male child ‘straight?’ is a latina or black nanny caring for a white girl baby having a ‘lesbian’ experience?) that is questionable at best.

the experience that all people are conditioned by a heterosexual society to be straight and see straightness as success and a default, is real– this post is not intended to remove that concept from anybody or ‘take away’ the right to express that concept in language. Lesbians experience it in a unique way, and almost all over lgbqa+ women (and others!) experience it in different unique ways. Its important. we gotta talk about it.

it’s just that this language as it was solidified, was done so by someone who did not think bisexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, were valid. And it was done so by someone who did not think that trans women were women, or that nonbinary dfab people were anything but cis women, or that trans men were anything but women. That’s what anon means when they say “it was never meant for the rest of us.” Many posts that are about “identifying compulsory heterosexuality” are posts that contain a lot of bi, pan, ace, trans, nonbinary, and other experiences as brainwashing and not as nuanced stores told by diverse people.

(which is not to say that a lesbian can’t have experiences where a heterosexual society tried to use bisexual and other categories as weapons or tools to keep them open to including men. We’re furious about that too.)

incidentally, TERFs would really love it if being a terf was synonymous with ‘lesbian experience.’ They have been trying to make that a reality for years. One of the ways they do so is popularize their language and references to their literature as I-thought-it-meants and get newcomers to lgbtqa+ community to use them and accept them. It can be really disappointing to find out that what seemed like useful language was coined in a context that is exterminatory of others but I’m sure that moving forward alternatives can be found that don’t include contributors to The Transsexual Empire.

last time i asked, someone told me that it’s been suggested (so idk how widespread the use is yet) that we use “coercive heterosexuality” for a non-terfy version of the concept

“compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence” is one of my fave wtf essays, not gonna lie. like…. listen to this:
“if we expand [the definition of ‘lesbian’] to embrace many more forms of primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving if practical and political support…we begin to grasp breadths of female history and psychology which have lain out of reach as a consequence of limited, mostly clinical definitions of lesbianism. […] to equate lesbian existence with male homosexuality because each is stigmatized is to erase female reality once again. […] all women exist on a lesbian continuum.”

Their attention is just another reminder that “compulsory heterosexuality” was never meant to describe the experiences of the rest of us. It was and remains a TERF/radfem/lesbian separatist dog whistle.

muggle-the-hat:

betterbemeta:

dykeastraea:

betterbemeta:

Reminder that “compulsory heterosexuality” as a term was coined by

Adrienne

Rich, a contributor to the infamous TERF book The Transsexual Empire.

Wait how is compulsory heterosexuality a terf thing. I’ve never heard that ? (I’ve barely heard anything about the term in general though so.)

The informal concept that we are all compelled by society to be heterosexual is real and important. But the phrase/language use of “compulsory heterosexuality” was coined or at least popularized by Adrienne Rich in her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, which was extremely sex-essentialist and included stuff like… a mother nursing her female child as a lesbian experience. Or a nurse caring for a female elder a lesbian experience. Even if not all lesbian experiences are sexual, that’s kind of getting into a sketchy area (is caring for a male child ‘straight?’ is a latina or black nanny caring for a white girl baby having a ‘lesbian’ experience?) that is questionable at best.

the experience that all people are conditioned by a heterosexual society to be straight and see straightness as success and a default, is real– this post is not intended to remove that concept from anybody or ‘take away’ the right to express that concept in language. Lesbians experience it in a unique way, and almost all over lgbqa+ women (and others!) experience it in different unique ways. Its important. we gotta talk about it.

it’s just that this language as it was solidified, was done so by someone who did not think bisexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, were valid. And it was done so by someone who did not think that trans women were women, or that nonbinary dfab people were anything but cis women, or that trans men were anything but women. That’s what anon means when they say “it was never meant for the rest of us.” Many posts that are about “identifying compulsory heterosexuality” are posts that contain a lot of bi, pan, ace, trans, nonbinary, and other experiences as brainwashing and not as nuanced stores told by diverse people.

(which is not to say that a lesbian can’t have experiences where a heterosexual society tried to use bisexual and other categories as weapons or tools to keep them open to including men. We’re furious about that too.)

incidentally, TERFs would really love it if being a terf was synonymous with ‘lesbian experience.’ They have been trying to make that a reality for years. One of the ways they do so is popularize their language and references to their literature as I-thought-it-meants and get newcomers to lgbtqa+ community to use them and accept them. It can be really disappointing to find out that what seemed like useful language was coined in a context that is exterminatory of others but I’m sure that moving forward alternatives can be found that don’t include contributors to The Transsexual Empire.

last time i asked, someone told me that it’s been suggested (so idk how widespread the use is yet) that we use “coercive heterosexuality” for a non-terfy version of the concept

clitcheese:

anyone i see reblogging this post is getting blocked and i know it’s about trans men but it’s clearly fucking asserting that being transfem is the better option when dealing with cis people

like. i am all for trans men talking about the ‘smol precious child’ thing but it takes about 0.001 fucking seconds of thinking about it to realise that people doing this tend to also treat trans women the opposite. like we’re gigantic ogres.

the YASS QUEEN, SLAY bullshit we get isn’t any better either; we’re treated as fucking spectacles. people can’t process that our daily lives aren’t a drag performance for all to gawk at. just please fucking think about what you’re saying about trans women before you post omg