#solidarity is more important than the discourse

[oopsallfictives]

The social class that is privileged under patriarchy is cisgender perisex men. Trans, nonbinary, and intersex men threaten the gender/sex binary and will therefore never be tolerated under a system that forces people to conform to that binary or face discrimination, abuse, and potentially death.

That's why the idea that trans men have male privilege is so ridiculous. No one is truly privileged by a system that wants them gone, no matter how well they can hide the target on their back

[mangled-by-disuse]

talking to friends about The Horrors, specifically the Trumpian Horrors, and, like

the more I consider it, the more I think that the best thing we outside the US can do - for ourselves, for the world, and for America as well - is to just holler to the fucking rooftops that AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLD.

By which I mean:

we do not let politicians, media, and our own social circles convince us that American issues are the only issues worth discussing;

we challenge politicians, media, and our own social circles on the politics of appeasement;

we challenge ourselves on the assumption that laws passed in the US affect us directly, and we do not place ourselves in American shoes;

we focus on our own shit. Not because it's more important, but because we need to remember that it still exists. Our eyes cannot be on the USA while the legislative and political rights in our own countries are eroded from under us.

we look to the rest of the world. We get used to viewing people who don't look like us, talk like us, or even like us as an equal and crucial part of the political landscape.

WE ARE LOUD ABOUT THIS. In politics, in activism, in social contexts, in our own assessment of our own politics, we remember and hold up that America is NOT the centre of the world, and that American hegemony is NOT inevitable.

This is not because I'm trying to undermine American struggles. This is because the Trump administration is strengthened and bolstered by every other country that chooses to suck the cock of American supremacy in the desperate attempt to maintain the last remnants of the old imperial order.

It is up to everyone in the world to challenge that, and to say: yeah, this fucking sucks, and we want America to be better, but we don't need America.

There are other markets. There are other allies and potential allies. There are other global powers (Personally I think we should try to dismantle global powers entirely, but, you know, one battle at a time) and there are other political shifts.

So much of the current rightward swing in the UK, at least, is directly modelled on MAGA to the point that it's the same movement, to the point where the branches of that movement feed power and influence to one another. You know what has consistently been one of the more successful tactics? Fucking reminding people that they are not, in fact, offering solutions to the problems Britain faces, because these are American solutions and we are not America.

idk it feels stupid to say this. it feels stupid to have to point out that Not Everywhere Is America, and it feels even stupider to think that this is something that needs pointing out to the systems of power. But the more I think about it, the surer I am that one of the tentpoles of American power, and therefore of Trump's power (in the US as well as beyond it!) is just... the willingness of so much of the world to say: yeah, sure, everything is America.

WE ARE NOT AMERICA.

AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE TO CONTROL US.

idk. maybe it won't change shit. but maybe yelling that at international power structures loudly enough - making noise about issues that are not American, focusing our efforts outside America, challenging American supremacy on the global stage - is, in fact, the most useful thing we can do.

[earlgraytay]

So the "don't call trans women dude" discourse is back on my dash, and I just read something that might explain why it's such a frustrating argument for everyone involved.

TLDR: There's gender-cultural differences that explain why people are arguing about this- and a reason it hurts trans women more than you might think if you were raised on the other side of the cultural divide.

I'll admit, I used to be very much on team "I won't call you 'dude' if it feels like misgendering, but also I don't really grok why it feels like I'm misgendering you, especially if I'm not addressing you directly." But then I read an academic paper that really unpicked how people used the word 'dude' (it's Kiesling (2004) if you're curious) and I realized that the way I was taught to use the word was different from the way most trans women were taught.

... So the thing about the word 'dude' that's really interesting is that it's used differently a) by people of different genders and b) across gender lines. This study is, obviously, 20 years old, but a lot of the conclusions hold up. The gist is, there's ~5 different ways that people use the word "dude":

marking discourse structure- AKA separating thoughts. You can use the word 'dude' to signal that you're changing the subject or going on a different train of thought.

exclamation. You can use the word "dude" the way you'd use another interjection like "oh my god" or "god damn".

confrontational stance mitigation. When you're getting in an argument with someone, you can address them as 'dude' to de-escalate. If you're both the same gender, it's homosocial bonding. If you're different genders, it's an attempt to weaken the gender-related power dynamic.

marking affiliation and connection. Kiesling calls this 'cool solidarity'- the idea is, "I'm a dude, you're a dude. We're just guys being dudes." This is often a greeting or a form of address (aka directly calling someone dude).

signaling agreement. "Dude, you are soooo right", kind of deal.

Now, here's the important part.

When [cis] men use the word 'dude', they are overwhelmingly using it as a form of address to mark affiliation and connection- "hey, we're all bros here, dude"- to mitigate a confrontational stance, or to signal agreement.

When [cis] women use the word 'dude', they're often commiserating about something bad (and marking affiliation/connection), mitigating a confrontational stance, or giving someone a direct order. (Anecdotally, I'd guess cis women also use it as an exclamation - this is how I most often use it.)

Cis men use the word 'dude' to say 'we're all guys here'. It is a direct form of male bonding. If a cis man uses the word 'dude' in your presence, he is generally calling you one of the guys.

Cis women use the word 'dude' to say 'we're on the same level as you; we're peers'- especially to de-escalate an argument with a cis man. Between women, it's an expression of ~cool solidarity~; when a woman's addressing a man, it's a way to say 'I'm as good as you, knock it off'.

So you've got this cultural difference, depending on how you were raised and where you spent time in your formative years. If you were assigned female at birth, you're probably used to thinking of the word 'dude' as something that isn't a direct form of address- and, if you're addressing it to someone you see as a girl, you're probably thinking of it as 'cool solidarity'! You're not trying to tell the person you're talking to that they're a man- you're trying to convey that they're a cool person that you relate to as a peer.

Meanwhile, if you were assigned male at birth and spent your teens surrounded by cis guys, you're used to thinking of 'dude' as an expression of "we're all guys here", and specifically as homosocial male bonding. Someone using the word 'dude' extensively in your presence, even if they're not calling you 'dude' directly, feels like they're trying to put you in the Man Box, regardless of how they mean it.*

So what you get is this horrible, neverending argument, where everyone's lightly triggered and no one's happy.

The takeaway here: Obviously, don't call people things they don't want to be called, regardless of gender! But no one in this argument is coming to it in bad faith.

If you were raised as a cis woman and you're using the word the way a cis woman is, it is a gender-neutral term for you (with some subconscious gendered connotations you might not have realized). But if you were raised as a cis man and you're using the word the way a cis man uses it, the word dude is inherently gendered.

Don't pick this fight; it's as pointless as a French person and an American person arguing whether cheek kisses are an acceptable greeting. To one person, they might be. To another person, they aren't. Accept that your worldview is different, move on, and again, don't call people things they don't want to be called.

*(There is, of course, also the secret third thing, where someone who is trying to misgender a trans woman uses the word 'dude' to a trans woman the way they'd use it to a man. This absolutely happens. But I think the other dynamic is the reason we keep having this argument.)

[veal-exe]

EDIT

This has gotten a lot of traction so I’m gonna be rude and say that if anyone here has the means, that my spouse and I need help to not be homeless and hungry.

my paypal is Lahoreling@Gmail.com

END EDIT

———

I was discussing the incident mentioned later in this piece with my wife yesterday and I saw another post by someone earlier doing something mentioned in here and I'm finally going to say something about it.

There is a serious problem in leftist spaces, especially online, especially on Tumblr, when it comes to language.

The way people are expected to speak just to even enter these spaces is incredibly complex, to the point of being outright hostile to those who haven’t already spent time in them. And it’s not just newcomers; people who have important things to say, people speaking from lived experiences, people who don’t have English as a first language but still deserve to be heard, are constantly talked down to or even pushed out entirely for not using the "right" words.

This gets even worse when you factor in how often new terms are coined in English, and then people are shamed for not immediately knowing or using them.

I saw someone reblog their own post saying something like, "I know for a fact more than half of y’all didn’t understand a fucking word I said here."

And honestly? That stuck with me, because yeah, I’ve felt that before. Not because I don’t value critical thinking! because I absolutely do! I just made a post on that too! but because so many of these posts are written in a way that makes them Functionally Inaccessible to anyone who doesn’t already have the right background knowledge. And at a certain point, if you actually want your words to have an impact, if you actually want to create meaningful change, then you’re going to have to accept some things:

People will not always use perfect language.

2. People will not always know the exact terminology you personally prefer they use when engaging in discourse.

3. Dismissing or attacking people for how they say something, instead of engaging with what they’re saying, is actively harmful.

And more than that, if you genuinely want people to understand and engage with the things you’re talking about, especially people who don’t speak English as a first language, especially people without access to higher education, especially people who don’t even know where to begin when it comes to self-education (because yes, that is a skill that has to be taught) then you are going to have to be the one to adjust sometimes. You are going to have to let people say things imperfectly. You are going to have to take a step back and engage with the message rather than just the words being used to express it.

One of the experiences that made me realize that I, as a non-native English speaker, was not welcome in Tumblr leftist spaces was when I spoke about real-life oppression I had experienced. I left one word out of my post, a word which honestly, was not even important when talking about an incident that had Happened To Me, not theory, not hypotheticals or any what-ifs of oppression, a story, a story about something that happened to me.

And because of that, people sat in a Discord server, picking apart my words, accusing me of awful things, and then came into my askbox throwing jargon and buzzwords I’d never even heard before, then got mad at me for being frustrated that this was happening.

Think about that. People who are directly impacted by oppression are being pushed out of spaces meant to discuss it because the way they speak doesn’t conform to certain expectations. That is not justice. That is not solidarity. That is not progress.

There is a fundamental disconnect here between theory and praxis. Ironically so many of you do not know what praxis is, because most of you engage with a lot of theory, and not a lot of praxis, you use the word praxis a lot, but, ironically, you have no idea what it means.

{to put my money where my mouth is, it means Doing Something, in the simplest possible terms}

In theory, leftist spaces should be accessible. They should be places where people can speak openly about their experiences, learn from each other, and work toward meaningful change. But in practice? There’s a gatekeeping of language so intense that many people, particularly those who are marginalized in ways beyond just their political beliefs, are outright excluded.

And this is something I need people to sit with: The assumption that the "right" language is easy to learn, or that anyone who doesn’t use it is being willfully ignorant, is an inherently privileged stance. Knowing where to find information, how to process it, and how to integrate new terminology into your vocabulary is a skill that is largely tied to education. Having the time to engage with leftist literature and theory, to stay up-to-date on every new term that gets introduced, is also a privilege. And the fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge this, that they expect perfect articulation from everyone, regardless of background, and punish those who don’t measure up, is a huge problem.

Worse still, the same people who act as gatekeepers of this language often fail to communicate their ideas in a way that is accessible at all.

This doesn’t mean that complex ideas should never be discussed. It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t strive for accuracy in their language. But it does mean that if your goal is to educate, if your goal is to spread awareness, if your goal is to help people understand and join the movement, if your goal is to engage with fellow oppressed people, then you have a responsibility to meet people where they are. You have a responsibility to make your language understandable.

Because if people can’t even process what you’re saying, then what’s the fucking point?

And before anyone says, "Well, people should put in the effort to learn!" Let me make something very clear: They do.

People who are new to leftist spaces, or who are coming in from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, are often trying their best to engage. They are listening, they are learning, they are processing. But if the response to every mistake, every slightly off phrasing, every unfamiliarity with a new term, is immediate hostility,

or even if it's just 'hey I see you're sharing a personal moment, but can you change your language to make me, personally, more comfortable with you discussing your oppression?' then you’re not teaching.

You’re just making sure only the people who already think and speak exactly like you get to stay in the room.

Your language, your terminology, your theory? none of it means anything if you can’t make it accessible to the people who actually need it. And it means nothing if you use it to Exclude rather than Include.

[tired-and-swaggy]

the lack of solidarity among queer people on other apps (especially twitter) is genuinely so disheartening. why are we arguing about whether queer women or queer men are more morally good. why are we arguing about what pronouns you need to use to be a lesbian. why are people being so biphobic lately. what happened? like why aren’t we standing together? we have bigger problems than this bullshit

[moonlightsapphic]

Fletcher, Billie Eilish, Dove Cameron, and Clairo have been romantically linked with men during Pride 2025. Must be recession era bisexual and fluid queer people just living their lives as usual.

I mean, bisexuals are awesome and they can date whoever they want but is this really relevent and it’s important for us to see authentic bi+ rep during Pride in such a crucial year for LGBTQ+ rights.

This may inform the lesbophobic, biphobic, and bimisogynistic stereotype that WLW women just need to find the right man to be “fixed” and so bi women should be extra careful to maintain a low profile about dating men it’s extremely important for us to avoid victim-blaming and affirm these women artists’ queer agency to date whoever they want, whenever they want, and oppose the idea that anyone else gets to have a say.

They’re also embracing soft feminine aesthetics which is such harmful marketing spreading the propaganda and tradwife narratives that they’re healed when they’re dating men and that’s great for them to be able to experiment with their personal style! This gives us an opportunity to oppose stereotypes related to gender presentation. It is also normal for a bi+ person to find healing in realising their fluid identity, or a healthy relationship with a partner of any gender.

Some of these bi+ artists deceptively profited off of a have been supported by a fellow WLW following, so heavily grieving about their personal dating life, not wanting to be a fan of their WLW work anymore, and feeling intensely betrayed because of beliefs that their sapphic sexuality was a phase and is no longer the same is normal may be indicative of internalised biphobia, as an individual’s queerness should not be considered a commodity. This might be useful to unpack in therapy! A bi woman can’t loves women the same way as a lesbian. We should stop continue wholeheartedly supporting queer and questioning artists since a welcoming climate (as opposed to a hostile public reaction) will encourage more artists to come out as sapphic to increase the overall number of lesbian and WLW artists.

The fear of bisexual women dating men being rejected by the LGBTQ+ community is unimportant, unfounded and self-centered validity discourse based in fact. Lesbians are more minoritised than bisexuals in general but bi+ folk are statistically more unsafe to come out, more likely to experience intimate partner violence, and more likely to have poorer mental health than their monosexual (straight, gay, and lesbian) peers. Due to this, bi+ women are actually underrepresented in the WLW community. Lesbians do not systematically oppress bisexuals; bisexual women can exhibit lesbophobia, but lesbians can’t can tangibly harm bisexuals by exibiting criticism prejudice and it doesn’t absolutely can count as biphobia according to research. Bisexuals don’t need lesbians to validate and affirm their sexuality especially when they’re dating men, to create inclusive safe spaces. Lesbians prefer to have their own WLW communities because of their shared experiences and culture (including butchfemme); bisexuals should create their own historically and contemporarily share that too and deserve to lay claim to it in additional combined sapphic spaces. Therefore, lesbians don’t also need the inclusion of bisexuals who aren’t actively in WLW relationships to promote overall WLW shared experiences, visibility, solidarity, and movement—as well as the growth of the community itself.

These criticisms Biphobia against public figures is harmless to feeds harmful exclusionary rhetoric against the overall LGBTQ+ community. Real phobia involves other hostile behaviours as well as kills queer people—which is the worst possible outcome we must avoid by fostering a culture of acceptance.

Bisexual women dating men have straight-passing hetero-presenting privilege and have a victim complex can face biphobia regardless. Bisexual WLW don’t experience the same lesbophobia-aligned bigotry as lesbian WLW. Bringing attention to biphobia is overshadowing jointly a resistance against lesbophobia. This is also offensive important when trans rights should be the movement of focus this year, especially since trans liberation and bi liberation are inherently linked.

Bisexuals don’t have to unlearn comphet like lesbians do and they center men love regardless of gender and their authentic selves. Lesbians have the additional challenge of discovering their lack of attraction to men. Bisexuals who date men are not tainted and gold-star/slut-shaming/puritanical rhetoric is misogynystic. We need to protect women’s and lesbians’ spaces from men bigots and TERF rhetoric that harms bi and trans folks (including genderqueer sapphics without whom sapphic spaces are incomplete), especially since it has been on the rise in recent years. Ultimately, lesbians don’t have the capacity or obligation to support bisexuals and this is by design of late-stage capitalistism and reactionary algorithmic internet that seeks to prevent collective queer liberation by dividing us; it is essential for us to resist with radical empathy and intentional unity.

There, fixed it for you. 🩷💜💙🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🧡🤍🩷Happy Pride!

[genderkoolaid]

While 4B has been a topic of conversation online for a few years, sporadically gaining popularity among U.S. TikTok users in moments like the “I chose the bear” trend, Trump’s reelection brought it front and center again. In the days following Trump’s win, online searches for the 4B Movement saw an unprecedented spiked. Across social media, women are posting that they need to divest from men, amassing hundreds of thousands of likes and millions of views. But the conversation about 4B in the U.S. is rife with misconceptions about the movement, including false assertions that 4B accounts for the majority of feminist thought in South Korea. It’s important to note that despite the global attention, 4B is a fringe movement in South Korea, and Han says the vast majority of South Korean feminists do not abide by it. “I just want to make sure that people understand that 4B does not speak for Korean feminism,” Han tells Them. “4B is not representative of Korean feminist politics. A lot of us see something a lot more diverse and a lot more intersectional than what 4B calls for.” Though the 4B movement is quickly gaining wind in the U.S., this is far from the first time American feminists have called for a divestment from men to combat misogyny. In the 1960s, political lesbianism emerged from the second-wave feminist movement as a means of decentering men from the lives of women. Like 4B, political lesbians aimed to divest from dating and having sex with men. They asserted that any feminist can be a lesbian, defining lesbian as any woman who did not have sex with men. “We call it 4B now, but it's political lesbianism,” Han says. “Essentially it's the same thing too, but the one aspect of being a political lesbian was you may or may not [actually be a lesbian], and sometimes you really didn't have sex with other women, but [instead lived by] the idea that you prioritize your relationships with other women, that you prioritize your solidarity with other women.” But with the 4B movement both in South Korea and the U.S., Han says this isn’t the case, as men still find themselves front and center in the discourse. She adds, “I've never heard so much discussion of straight men. Can we just decenter them?” [...] Han says that they hope this blip in interest about 4B fades into the next news cycle, as there are so many other forms of intersectional South Korean feminism that do include queer and trans people. Ultimately, many of the current discussions about 4B are coming from a place of privilege that queer people don’t have the luxury of accessing. “Queer and trans folks know that isolation or imagining a life ‘just on our own’ — that's not our reality,” Han says. “That's not our vision. In many ways, I think our experiences tell us that we have to live with people who hate us. We have to work with and against and fight folks who mean to harm us and simply disavowing them or refusing to interact with them or somehow running away and keeping to ourselves, that's never been possible.”

[juju-or-anya]

It's hard not to find irony in the criticisms directed towards Eloise Bridgerton and the elevation of Penelope Featherington as a more genuine and hardworking figure in contrast with Eloise's supposed privileged circumstances and her discourse on feminism. Indeed, some voices have pointed out Eloise's feminism as something white and privileged, and while this is not without merit, it's akin to rediscovering what others have already noticed, akin to Christopher Columbus "discovering" America.

Understanding the context in which "Bridgerton" unfolds is essential. The series is set in Regency England, between 1813 and 1825. This historical period is marked by a highly stratified and conservative society, where women, especially those of the upper class, were relegated to traditional roles and lacked basic legal rights. In this context, any discussion of feminism must consider the unique limitations and challenges of the time.

It is true that Eloise Bridgerton, being part of a respected family in English nobility, embodies many of the characteristics associated with the white and privileged feminism of the time. However, this should not diminish the value of her role in advancing feminist ideas in her historical context. It is thanks to women like Eloise, who challenged social expectations and dared to question the status quo, that doors were opened for future, more inclusive feminist movements.

On the other hand, when analyzing Penelope Featherington's role in contrast with Eloise Bridgerton's, intriguing nuances worthy of a more detailed critical exploration are revealed. Although both come from upper-class families, Penelope's experiences differ significantly from Eloise's. In the society depicted in "Bridgerton," Penelope is portrayed as a more marginal figure, overshadowed by the prominence and glamour of the Bridgerton family. She is often seen in the background, struggling to find her place in a world where her social status does not put her at the center of attention.

Throughout the series, Penelope exhibits a distressing lack of empathy and solidarity towards other women. Instead of fostering unity and support among her peers, her writings are propelled by feelings of envy, resentment, and desires for revenge. Striking examples of this include her actions to publicly reveal Marina Thompson's pregnancy, intending to undermine her relationship with Colin Bridgerton, or defaming individuals such as Daphne, Edwina, and Kate Sharma, often with no apparent reason other than personal gain.

Penelope's behavior as Lady Whistledown sheds light on her complex nature and motivations. While it may represent an attempt to find her voice in a world dominated by more powerful figures, it also reveals a tendency towards manipulation and selfishness. Ultimately, her role as the mysterious chronicler is more than just a quest for identity; it is a reflection of the moral and ethical complexities underlying the society of "Bridgerton."

In summary, asserting that Penelope is more feminist and hardworking than Eloise due to her role as Lady Whistledown is, at best, simplistic and, at worst, deeply misleading. Both women, while privileged in their own right, have chosen different paths in life and have faced their own challenges. However, the narrative of Penelope as a morally superior and more genuinely hardworking figure should be questioned in light of her actions and motivations, which often reveal a lack of integrity and empathy towards her peers.

It's important to note that when Theo confronts Eloise, questioning her understanding of the real world and her privileged position, Eloise doesn't reject this criticism but uses it as a catalyst to seek greater understanding. Recognizing the validity of Theo's observation, Eloise actively seeks to broaden her horizons. She engages in conversations with Theo and John, seeking to break free from the bubble of privilege in which she has lived so far.

On the other hand, Penelope takes a different stance towards her own privileged position. Instead of acknowledging her situation and seeking to understand the realities of those less privileged, Penelope vehemently denies any suggestion that she also benefits from the system. Rather than accepting her position of privilege, she portrays herself as a victim, despite her actions suggesting otherwise. Ultimately, this divergence in attitudes between Eloise and Penelope highlights the complexity of individual perceptions of privilege and personal responsibility in an unequal world.

PS: The comment: "Penelope saved Eloise by writing that she hung out with radicals, she doesn't know what it's like to be grateful" is shit. Whose fucking fault is it that the Queen is on a crusade with torches and pitchforks, looking for blood and a rolling head? From Penelope because she doesn't know when to keep her hand still and stop writing, if it weren't for Penelope, the queen wouldn't think that Eloise is Lady Whistledown, Penelope wasn't looking to help Eloise, she was looking to save her skin.

[pokemonheritageposts]

I apologise.

I realised how fucking rude and condescending that was of me,, also I found out there is a way to filter out text from posts without asking ppl to tag things, which I probably should have done in the first place rather than bitching about it to you as if it's your fault.

genuinely I am really sorry, honestly idk why I thought that would be an okay thing to say to someone. ngl I think I was just lowkey jealous that you have the following to be able to get donations (NOT an excuse to be shitty, I know)

I don't wanna stir the pot even more and turn your blog into some back-and-forth discourse thing, just wanted to apologise personally (also sorry I'm sending this on anon, just I don't rlly wanna bring more attention towards myself)

i appreciate the reflection. not gonna say you were valid exactly but i appreciate where the impulse was coming from. it's not without some degree of discomfort that i'm asking for donations, i'd much rather do commissions if i could, but i had to take on so many comms while i was unemployed that i still have several outstanding.

the important thing to remember is that we're all in this together except for the wealth-hoarding capitalist scumfucks keeping this entire broken economic system as the standard and letting the entire working class suffer for it

solidarity forever

[female-eren]

If a woman walks into a feminist group and the focus is more on whether she has given up men or not rather than what the group can accomplish for women at the moment, that would seem to me like an ineffective feminist group focused less on female class solidarity and more on identity discourse and personal small-scale choices/actions. Keep in mind that I totally agree that individual action, like never dating men, is never wasted (in fact, it's something that men as a class are very afraid of) and women should be encouraged to stop dating men. But why is it the most important? Does the y chromosome in her vicinity impede her ability to organize a protest for abortion, or a pornography boycott campaign, or an abortion fund, or writing an email to her university about period equality for students and staff?

[velvetvexations]

your post on it made me realize that the "AFAB transfem/intersex transfem" discourse feels like a creepily close parallel to the "lesboy/lesbian man" discourse. which i directly experienced. i think that experience is why i haven't been able to directly acknowledge the similarities until i saw someone else lay it out.

one can functionally have the same identity- as long as you don't use the exact term(s) at the center of the discourse. only speak using the popular terms, maintain the "right opinions", get comfortable with occasional enforcement of where the group-border is right now (it may move or it may not but always act like it was where it is now forever), and suddenly it's not end of the world or language. we can continue to say "words have meaning" at the same time as you existing in our space. for someone fine with the trade-off it can be quite comfortable.

call yourself as "lesbian boyfriend" as much as you want. but don't shorten it, and you do need to tell me about your genitals or if/how you transitioned so i can make sure if i'm comfortable having you around. i mean it would be scary if a man was in here right? thank god you understand that you have "masc privilege". but you can call yourself a man/guy/dude as long as you're joking, but if it isn't just a fake punchline than people with posts about supporting multigender/genderfluid/nonbinary lesbians and how hot "butches who are just some guy" are will attack you for being a fake invader.

talk about how you're "an intersex woman transitioning towards a feminine identity" as much as you want. don't shorten it, you need to make sure you aren't making any perisex trans people uncomfortable, so don't mention IGM/CAGAB/SIG or anything like that just to be safe. but you do need to tell me about your genitals. never disagree about the "privilege" that having a congenital condition gives you or the people with posts talking about how important trans/intersex solidarity is and how "i wish i was an [insert h-slur or synonym] that would be SO hot/affirming*" will attack you for being a fake invader.

like. you can still talk about it! but never directly name it unless you're fine with the potential level of harassment you'll get, despite nothing functionally changing about your identity. despite being in that space for entire years of your life. just never clarify or if you do, use the language WE want you to use, i mean you don't want to make anyone uncomfortable or kill the vibe right? if you do than the invisible switch flips and you'll magically stop being one of us.

this is all for everyone's safety btw. if you question it you're dangerous and if you get upset you're manipulative, which means we were retroactively right about you. also if you're quiet and leave that just means you're admitting you were guilty, which also means we were retroactively right about you. it's a very effective system! anyway, please read my essay about how community is important for our survival. social murder and isolation are just so fucked up...... you really can't trust anyone outside our group. have you SEEN those statistics? this is why i only form relationships inside the group. because it's Safe. you should read this twitter thread/Medium article about how we've fixed radical feminism so the group can be even safer and more effective!

(*rotate this with "i'm an [h-slur] because that word means transgender!" or "god i want to fuck an [h-slur] so bad" because they're all relatively common in perisex queer space. pick the most accurate poison because it's all just intersexism)

To be clear though, people who are like that about intersex trans women are a minority among the people who object to it. Most of them think having been AFAB is ontologically incompatible with being a transfem. But people who are less stupid than that recognize that's stupid and assume the objection is to the specific language they're seeing used.

[ana-snz]

More thoughts on the recent snzblr discourse. I will try my best to be understanding and levelheaded about this, but this topic is very personal to me so forgive me if I’m not entirely able to.

I will start by saying that it is not “purity culture” or “moral panic” to say that having this kink does not excuse intentionally infecting unconsenting individuals with illness. There is a MASSIVE difference between enjoying a kink in a consensual setting or fantasizing about it (no one is saying you can’t do these things, you are not being shamed for your fantasies / desires!) and actually involving unwilling individuals in your kink.

Consent is the #1 most important thing in all kink spaces. Like yes we are all here for the same reason, and there may be a propensity to feel defensive if you feel you are being kink-shamed in what is supposed to be a space for us all to be as open and loud and unabashed about our desires as we want, but it is still absolutely crucial to delineate between what is fantasy and what is reality, and understand that our real life actions can and do have consequences. We are not living inside a sickfic, the ways in which we choose to engage in our kink MUST be consensual, respectful, responsible, and safe. It is the bare minimum for this, or any kink space.

It is not kink-shaming to say that non-consensual engagement is wrong and unethical, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something as potentially dangerous as illness. It’s also worth acknowledging that the dynamic of our community has been greatly impacted by COVID, just by the nature of what the kink entails, and that this sucks and is worth mourning, but just like with many other things the pandemic has impacted, we cannot hang on to this old way of being when it no longer is safe or realistic to do so. This is the way things are now, and it sucks, but we can still find SO much enjoyment and gratification and pleasure in the way things are now.

If you are feeling discomfort, if the points disabled people are bringing up around this topic are making you question yourself and your actions, that is likely something for you sit with and explore yourself, rather than trying to debate with disabled people on whether or not their reaction to inflammatory, ableist content is “moral panic”. Understand that this conversation is part of a much, much larger picture and that it is not isolated to just our community, but rather a reflection of a larger systemic response in which disabled people have been disbelieved, undermined, and discarded when it comes to our rights and safety during an ongoing pandemic.

If you didn’t read as much into *that* post as some of us did, great. You likely don’t have to be on hyper alert for this kind of content, but we see it all the time, everywhere. The casual downplaying of COVID and the flippancy about its risks are things we are all too familiar with, and tone policing marginalized folks when we get upset about harmful content is not the move. Listen to us, learn from us, be in solidarity with us. It may seem counterintuitive to you to care about these things in what many of us may see as just a place to escape and have a little fun, but respect is the backbone of kink spaces and we’d all fare well if we could remember that.

This was longer than I planned on it being, oops. I also blocked some people so I don’t even know who will see this but just wanted to add my piece. Love y’all bbs, stay safe ❤️

[flagqueer]

shout—out to:

anti—rq coiners who don't gatekeep their coins from anyone of any stance, but only ask that rq don't interact ♡

antis of anything that are able to extend care towards the beings they're against because they're still conscious beings ♡

rqs who understand that "rq dni" is only a boundary, and that it's nothing personally against you ♡

anti—rq coiners who are willing to set aside different beliefs, stances, and such to allow anyone to use their coins ♡

rqs who don't get salty about antis recoining, or taking inspiration from trans��ids ♡

antis and rqs who are able to stand in solidarity because queer rights are already in danger, and understand that it's currently more important to form community than to discourse ♡

text id: "shout-out to:" biggest text followed by regular text:

"anti-rq coiner who don't gatekeep their coins from anyone of any stance, but only ask that rq don't interact."

"antis of anything that are able to extend care towards the beings they're against because they're still conscious beings."

"rqs who understand that "rq dni" is only a boundary, and that it's nothing personally against you."

"anti-rq coiners who are willing to set aside different beliefs, stances, and such to allow anyone to use their coins."

"rqs who don't get salty about antis recoining or taking inspiration from trans-ids."

"antis and rqs who are able to stand in solidarity because queer rights are already in danger, and understand that it's currently more important to form community rather than to discourse."

[izzyshandz]

I swear if i see one more mf say izzy has been 'redeemed' or needed a 'redemption arc' im literally going to scream into my pillow until i lose my voice.

redeem is such a black and white way of looking at his entire character and dismisses everything hes gone through and yall (izzy haters and others) are just so fucking snob nosed and ignorant to sit there and think hes a villain because of how he acted. theyre fucking pirates. theyre not perfect, none of them are. eds a villain, stedes a villain, if youre doing it like that. ed has killed so many people, stede literally left his wife and kids and also had a hand in killing people; it may be easier for them to change because of the perspective the show gives them and they had love but izzy did not. everyone hated him, ed, his own crew, stedes crew.

normalizing peoples reactions to things as something other than villainy and heroism is so god damn important in a show that's trying to accurately involve our perspectives in this day and age. its a tale as old as time, making someone 'completely in the wrong' because their perspective isnt the one you aligned with as much.

like the rest of the crew izzy had his own bad things hes done, he didnt need this 'redemption' everyones blabbering on about. he needed to be fucking heard, to be seen, and acknowledged-- not thrown aside and abandoned because of a whim. you all can ride up blackbeards ass because oh hes so hot, hes so pretty omg wow; but that wont ever change the fact his character is a fucked up person... youre allowed to love him anyways, why not izzy? we didnt see blackbeard before screen but how hes mentioned it shows he was a shit awful person, the only reason no one cares is because on hes fuckin gay for stede or whatever so the main characters get a free ride. ( i agree they all get a free ride, im just tired of this izzy isolation man )

why does he need to be redeemed in your eyes? just because youve seen what hes done? he was literally a product of his environment in season one he was a product of blackbeard's leadership. only with the loyalty and solidarity of the crew did he really begin to find himself, thats fucking hard to do that late in life. instead of calling it some bullshit black and white redemption arc, lets just celebrate izzy being himself and being fucking loved for once in his god damn life.

hes also way more fucking mature and put together than people give him credit for. love you izzy.

edit: thank you all for the reblogs and insights in every single one, i read them i promise i do. im just so mf heartbroken we have to tag things as discourse when its really just about people not being compassionate. (as a couple people have pointed out) i will said id reblog and comment on every single tag but this is my side </3 EVERYONE PLEASE READ THE REBLOGGED TAGS TOO / / theyre so real ! ive also opened up that ask box thingy i havent been on tumblr in yrs and have 0 clue how any of that works if anyone wants my perspective on anything izzy related. *or otherwise ofmd related

[transfemme-shelterdog]

being called a transmisogynist for saying “hey this person is intersexist and kind of a dickhead to transmascs” because the person I’m saying hey that isn’t cool about just so happens to be a trans woman and people insists there’s some ulterior motive. But then if a trans woman suggests that someone is transmisogynistic even on accident it’s all “oh it’s them TMEs at it again, TMRA, truly the men of the trans community,” like immediately.

It’s a very strange comparison but it reminds me a lot of how when a (cis) woman is outed as abusive everyone questions it until they’re blue in the face (even when there’s concrete evidence that should dispel this nuance on the table) but then when it’s a man who does it there’s no questions asked, people going “oh it’s in his nature as a man.”

Idk I wish there was more unity among trans people. I wish I didn’t have to feel like I was walking on eggshells on a 24/7 basis. I wish I didn’t have to feel like I was Betraying The Sisterhood for “choosing” the wrong type of trans. I almost cannot avoid these attitudes or these rhetorics when I’m online and I feel like I’m doomscrolling constantly when I just want to see trans joy.

I know that realistically there’s people who don’t know about this discourse and it’s an insular circle and there are good honest people that would have no questions or debates if you mention transmascs facing transphobia, they’d just nod and agree. There’s transfemmes who would rightfully take you sharing your own experiences as a moment of building connection and solidarity in shared situations rather than how insular discourse people would take it as “speaking over”.

But the loudest, the cruelest, the meanest, dominate this platform and make the discourse (especially in its most extreme forms) look like it’s far more widespread and harmful ideas like transandrophobia/transmisogyny are more commonplace. It’s the phenomenon of focussing on the bad so all you see is the bad, so all people post about is the bad. That is not to say there aren’t dickheads and jerks out there — but it’s so hard to remind yourself of what good is in a community when everyone is so focussed on the discourse.

These discussions are important but I genuinely don’t think Tumblr is a good or smart place to do it especially after the marekane incident which was fucking insane to witness. People genuinely lack literacy and 90% of their vocabulary is buzzwords and they’d rather immediately play mental gymnastics and move goalposts than engage in an actual discussion and build solidarity. I genuinely think everyone would agree much more with each other’s points if they weren’t too busy waiting for who’s gonna fire the allegorical buzzword and accusation bullet first. If you isolate these discussions outside of the internet and the internet’s tendency to fall into echo chambers and/or if you even practice good ol’ code switching you’ll find so many more people would agree with the core point of your intent and ideas even if the terms you personally use to describe it make them balk.

Anyways. “Transandrophobia as a word doesn’t deserve to exist,” with that logic transmisogyny as a word shouldn’t exist and we should all go back to the tried and true just-calling-it-transphobia because then this arbitrary discourse about who is/isn’t oppressed and who deserves/doesn’t deserve it more or whatever the fuck wouldn’t be happening.

hope I. articulated this right I am so tired.

Yeah Tingler is an absolute dogshit platform for actual discussion, as is most online platforms. It's partially why I prefer talking to people, face to face, as it's a lot easier to have actual discussions.

I also feel like most trans people IRL don't act like this, and do acknowledge that transmascs are faced with unique oppression, unlike a lot of transfems here who are determined to bury their heads in the sand and claim that trans men/mascs have it so easy

[mildlyalarming33]

'Womens' Rights

(yes this was inspired by sarajamss' new video they made about womanhood)

Women's rights have long been at the forefront of social justice movements, advocating for equality in legal, social, economic, and political spheres. From voting rights to workplace equity and reproductive autonomy, the fight for gender equality has achieved significant progress. However, to fully realize the vision of gender justice, it is essential to broaden the framework of “women’s rights” to include those who have historically been left out of the conversation—particularly non-binary people, transmasculine individuals, and others who do not conform to traditional gender norms but who share many of the same vulnerabilities due to their anatomy or marginalized gender identities.

The label “women’s rights” has typically referred to issues affecting cisgender women—those whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth. However, rights and protections related to reproductive health, freedom from gender-based violence, access to equitable healthcare, and freedom from discrimination are not exclusive to cis women. Many non-binary people and transmasculine individuals—those who were assigned female at birth (AFAB)—also need access to abortion, birth control, gender-affirming healthcare, and protection from sexist policies and societal violence. Yet, because mainstream feminist discourse often centers cis women, these individuals’ experiences are frequently erased or overlooked.

For example, in discussions of reproductive rights, legislation that restricts abortion access or defunds reproductive health services is often framed solely as a "women’s issue." But this framing ignores the fact that non-binary people and transmasculine people may also need these services. Policies that require gender markers to match a binary definition in order to receive healthcare can further block access. An inclusive approach must recognize that bodily autonomy belongs to everyone, regardless of gender identity, and that reproductive rights must be protected for all people who can become pregnant.

Similarly, gender-based violence affects not just women, but anyone perceived as feminine or vulnerable due to gender nonconformity. Trans people, particularly trans women and transfeminine individuals, face staggering rates of violence, often fueled by the same misogyny and patriarchal structures that harm cis women. Transmasculine and non-binary people also report high rates of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and institutional discrimination. Expanding the conversation around gender-based violence to include these groups is not a dilution of the cause—it is a necessary evolution toward justice for all.

Intersectionality, a concept coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, offers a useful framework for understanding how gender intersects with race, class, disability, and other identities. But it must also include gender diversity beyond the binary. Feminism that fails to be trans-inclusive is not truly intersectional. Inclusive feminism recognizes that the fight for liberation must include those whose bodies and identities challenge dominant norms—those who are too often told that they are “too masculine,” “not feminine enough,” or simply “don’t belong” in women’s spaces.

Moreover, including non-binary and transmasculine people in these movements strengthens them. It brings new perspectives, addresses gaps in advocacy, and fosters solidarity across communities. In the face of rising attacks on bodily autonomy—from anti-trans healthcare bans to abortion restrictions—it is more important than ever to build coalitions that defend the rights of all marginalized people, not just those who fit a narrow definition of womanhood.

In conclusion, the fight for women’s rights must evolve into a fight for gender justice—one that includes not just cisgender women, but also non-binary people, transmasculine individuals, and others who experience oppression because of their bodies and gender identities. By embracing an inclusive, intersectional feminism, we create a more powerful, unified movement that better serves everyone impacted by patriarchal systems. True liberation is not selective—it is expansive, affirming, and inclusive of all.