catboiarson

[catboiarson]

Personally I think “do trans men experience male privilege?” is a complex question with various conclusions that depends on a lot of factors (Passing! Class! Age! Country! Race!), but if your example of trans men experiencing male privilege is “they can pass for cis women” you have completely lost the plot so hard it’s in space. It’s in the asteroid belt. What the goddamn hell are you talking about

[catboiarson]

Literally every trans man or transmasc I have ever known (save for one person out of like 20), has been sexually assaulted. But apparently it's evil and transmisogynistic of me or anyone to try looking into systemic reasons for why that is, despite it having literally nothing to do with transfems.

Turning rape into a "transmascs vs transfems" suffering contest is the most callous and asinine thing you can possibly do and I will forever and always refuse to entertain that for any amount of time.

[catboiarson]

I’m not sure the precise number of people I need to say this to but the answer to “reduce human suffering” is not “destroy suffering humans” much in the same way that setting your math test on fire in the exam room does not assure you 0% wrong answers and an A+ by default

[catboiarson]

As a society we have benefited so much from successful public health measures that we now have the privilege of declaring that we must not need them anymore

Bitch before enriched flour, neural tube defects like spina bifida were far more common. Even now, spina bifida clinicians and researchers are begging to have salt and maize fortified to reach groups that don’t use as much flour. Before iodized salt, the United States had a fucking GOITER BELT. Eleven years after the introduction of fluoridated water, a city in Michigan found the rate of dental caries among school children dropped a staggering 60%— in an era where tooth decay regularly fucking killed people

I’m literally not even going to start on vaccines, which are among the most successful and robustly studied public health measures in world history

You might say “oh well today we all have access to vitamins and toothpastes and dentists so we don’t need those things in our food supplies” and boy do white people on social media loooove to fucking say that. But here’s the thing: no, people don’t all have easy access to those things. That’s privilege talking yet again

[catboiarson]

Many lgbt teenagers and young adults growing up on the internet today have socially conservative beliefs that they voice at all times that they got from their conservative parents which they’ve never challenged because they think the life experience of being gay or trans makes them politically progressive

[catboiarson]

So it really seems like a lot of you have never spent time with or spoken to high support disabled men, schizophrenic men, bipolar men, or autistic men with high aggression symptoms the way you speak about masculinity and being perceived as men as always being rewarded.

Say that to the black bipolar man getting the cops called on him by a white woman while he's having an episode.

Tell that to the autistic boy getting restrained in school and then sent to a separate class that is essentially a prison pipeline for having "loud scary meltdowns" when he gets overstimulated.

Tell that to the man who gets muscle spasms, or the man who doesn't have control over his facial expressions, the man who has hearing loss, or the man who has mobility issues. Who are immediately side eyed, assumed a public threat and subsequently put into danger because of the way these symptoms in men are perceived by abled people.

You cannot say "But masculinity is always rewarded" and not show your ass being ableist and racist. You cannot claim to care about disabled men only when you only care if you can strip them of their manhood, masculinity and in turn, their humanity and autonomy. You cannot erase the men who are attacked because of how anti-masculine sentiments intersect with their disability.

And guess what? It compounds on disabled trans men, who yes, do exist, whose issues need to be seen, are not just "outliers", and are already facing violence because of socially accepted hatred of trans manhood on top of the prejudice of being a man while disabled. Whether you want to see it or not, it happens. We are actively attacked for the masculinity many of us have to fight for years to finally have the ability to express.

We should not have to shrink ourselves into an accepted box of femininity, mask our disabilities and have our ability to self actualize stripped from us because our identity and disability make you uncomfortable. We should not be expected to stay silent because you only want to see manhood as encompassing a white, abled, cis strawman.

[catboiarson]

ppl on this website will say that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it and then recycle the same "This Marginalized Queer Group Is Actually Bad And It's Actually Okay To Bully Them And Harass Them" discourse every year like clockwork

[catboiarson]

an observation from several posts/conversations that could really help in avoiding a lot of misunderstandings: often when people talk about 'transmisogyny', they are using the term 'transmisogyny' to mean at least three different things simultaneously and conflating different meanings of the term in discussions. in general usage i've seen 'transmisogyny' used to mean:

transmisogyny-as-phenomena - i.e. 'transmisogyny' as a term for the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, a common feature of transfems' experiences;

transmisogyny-as-framework - in which transmisogyny is elevated to the level of a conceptual framework for understanding all transphobia. under this meaning everyone is encouraged/expected to conceptualise their experiences of transphobia through the lens of transmisogyny and run it through a filter of "how does this relate back to transmisogyny as the primary driving force for all transphobia"

on top of this both uses of the term are also conflated with the TMA/TME framework that divides people into two neat categories of those affected or primarily targeted by transmisogyny (transmisogyny affected, or TMA) and those exempt from transmisogyny and only accidentally impacted by it (transmisogyny exempt, or TME).

conflating all these meanings with each other is how you end up with soggy takes like "rejecting the label of TME is denying transfems the right to define and discuss their own oppression" which is a real thing that someone (transmasc) said to me. treating these concepts as all interchangeable meanings of the term transmisogyny contributes to a lot of the discourse and (frankly) animosity about discussions of transandrophobia, because when someone says something like "idk i just don't think transmisogyny is adequate as a robust framework for understanding how all transphobia works" or "dividing the world into TMA/TME is a flawed way of viewing transphobia and replicates the gender binary we're all trying to dismantle", that's a critique of transmisogyny-as-framework, but is read as a rejection of transmisogyny-as-phenomena, and thus is viewed as invalidating transfems' experiences.

add to that the fact that i've seen some people insist that transmisogyny is not just an umbrella term for the ways transfems experience transphobia but just means the intersection of transphobia and misogyny - but at the same time people insist that AFAB (trans) people are all exempt from transmisogyny by default and that our experiences should be discussed as 'misdirected transmisogyny'. which renders the de facto meaning of the term 'transmisogyny' an umbrella term for transfem experiences from which anyone not transfem is exempt.

the conflation of terms and definitions means any critique of transmisogyny or TMA/TME is taken as a denial of transfems' experiences. it also means that when transmascs propose a term like 'transandrophobia' - meaning the intersection of the identity positions of 'trans' and 'man', or more broadly a term for commonly-shared experiences of transmascs - that's read as an argument that all men are systemically oppressed for being men (it's not) and/or that transmascs are proposing transandrophobia-as-framework (again, not the case). but because 'transmisogyny' can refer interchangeably to both transphobic phenomena and experiences and a proposed conceptual framework for transphobia in general, the term 'transandrophobia' is misconstrued as a conceptual framework. we say "we've come up with a term to describe our experiences as transmascs" and people hear "you need to conceptualise all your experiences with transphobia in terms of the oppression of transmascs and centre our experiences in your discussions about your own marginalisation".

the reality is that most people discussing transandrophobia are not denying that transfems experience transphobia or denying that transmisogynistic phenomena happen. objections to the TMA/TME distinction are objections to a conceptual framework that treats all transphobia as just transmisogyny in a trenchcoat, and not a denial that transfems experience transmisogyny or are 'not oppressed' or whatever else.

for the record, i have no beef with transmisogyny either as a term for the intersection of transphobia and misogyny or as a term for shared transfem experiences. my critiques of transfeminst thinking are theoretical, namely:

transmisogyny-as-framework presupposes that the major driving force of all transphobia is a desire to target/punish trans women and that everyone else is caught in the crossfire. i don't think that's adequate as a conceptual framework because transphobia is better understood as a result of a gender-essentialist society punishing all non-normative performance of gender. it also relies on a lot of faulty assumptions about the transphobia that transmascs experience. transphobia experienced by transmascs is treated as a category-typical experience of transphobia (i.e. trans men get the 'just transphobia' version, whilst transfems get the 'transphobia plus' version)... but also transmasc oppression must be framed in terms of 'misdirected (trans)misogyny'. you can't treat trans men as having the most typical, 'basic' experience of transphobia whilst also insisting all transphobia is actually a form of transmisogyny misdirected at other trans people. those two positions are mutually contradictory. if all transphobia is actually about transmisogyny then transfems are getting the default transphobia experience and transmascs/trans nonbinary people/etc are all getting variations of that, not the other way around.

if you want to use transmisogyny as a framework for understanding all of transphobia, you cannot label anyone as exempt from transmisogyny. if transmisogyny is the proposed framework for understanding all transphobic discrimination of any trans person of any gender, then you are saying we all exist in a system of transmisogyny. therefore none of us are exempt from it. and if you're proposing transmisogyny-as-framework for all trans experiences, then all trans people get to weigh in on it, because you're applying it to all of us. i get to disagree with the framework being coercively applied to my experiences and i should be able to do that without being called transmisogynistic, because critiquing a framework you're asking every trans person to submit to is not synonymous with hating on trans women or denying their lived experiences or saying they're not oppressed. you can't insist that transmascs are TME by default whilst also insisting we only ever discuss our experiences as 'misdirected transmisogyny'. and you definitely can't label all transmascs as exempt from transmisogyny whilst simultaneously insisting we use transmisogyny as the conceptual framework within which we understand our oppression. that's trying to have your cake and eat it.

the TMA/TME framework is just reinventing binary gender but with extra steps. especially since in practice determining whether someone is TMA or TME seems to involve an awful lot of focus on people's assigned gender and what genitals they were born with.

a lot of this theorising follows a very radfem pattern of dividing everyone into two gendered categories, labelling one of those categories to Privileged Oppressor Class, and then heavily policing who gets to belong to the Oppressed Victims Class based on their genitals and socialisation. at which point you're just doing TERFism from the other direction. any framework that proposes we can understand gendered experiences in terms of a strict binary is automatically throwing intersex and nonbinary people under the bus. a comprehensive theory of trans experiences must have space for nonbinary identities and intersex experiences otherwise it is incomplete.

i'm making this post in good faith and i'm not denying the impact of transmisogyny on transfems. but i do think theorising around transmisogyny and TMA/TME as a framework have a number of flaws and i'm not going to use those frameworks to talk about my own experiences because they are theoretically inadequate. a robust theory of transphobia and trans experiences must have room for all trans experiences within it, as well as overlapping experiences of gendered oppression such as intersexism, misogyny, butchphobia etc. TMA/TME ain't it.

[catboiarson]

I understand the need for terms to describe and understand oppression, and as a transfem I really don't have a problem with that-- But can't you all think for a second that if your Transmasc, Non-Binary, and Intersex siblings all tell you that the terminology is harmful to them, that maybe there's some issues with these labels, even if unintentional, and those terms aren't going to be a good description?

I understand that you don't think the term creates and reinforces a gender binary, But the people who are particularly actively erased and severely harmed by the gender binary- Intersex and Non-binary people, do- and I'm gonna be honest, I think their experiences need to be trusted on this one.

I have reasons to dislike the use of the labels too, personally, as a transfem, partially due to my concerns about our other trans and intersex siblings, partially due to my own dislike of what it's kind of come to represent--- Sometimes it's not that the term TME/TMA are being resisted due to a sense of transmisogyny or bigotry, but rather because, as terms, they do not fit their purpose, and they are not effective to use in these discussions.

Passing legitimate concerns about how these terms can harm us is not bigotry.

Telling you, honestly, that these labels are rigid and binary and therefore not a good representation of gender-based oppression when gender and sex itself diverse and nuanced much past the ability for two terms to divide all levels and contexts an individual is affected, Is not bigotry. We are allowed to object to the terms used to describe us without it being bigotry.

This is not the same as transphobic arguments about the word Cis. That comes from a place of wanting to otherise and denormalise trans people as much as possible. People dislike being called TMEs because the label can be incorrect in describing their relationship to transmisogyny, or can imply things about their own oppression which they literally do not experience. This doesn't come out of a place of wanting to silence or otherise transfemmes about their oppression and experiences-- Not at all. It comes from a need to allow people's own oppression and experience to still be recognised when there's an underlying and valid feeling that these terms can dismiss or entirely mischaracterise that.

[catboiarson]

if you're in the throes of cosmic despair i cannot recommend museums enough. art or science or history it doesn't matter. oh we're all connected, all of us and everything, throughout all time and space, and no one, no one, no one is alone? awesome. that's what i thought i just wanted to make sure.

[catboiarson]

how did we lose the plot so hard with feminism and activism like seriously… are we forgetting that being kind and loving to the men and boys in your life, teaching them as kids if you are a parent to be kind respectful humans, and showing them how to be emotionally vulnerable and making a society in which it is safe to do so was like…. A huge part of feminism, dismantling patriarchal values, and creating a generation of loving men who are held accountable for their actions?

Why is it “kill all men yes even the trans ones and if you say otherwise you’re an MRA” and not “let’s maybe create a world that encourages good men.” Did we forget that feminism was supposed to be good for everyone and that the patriarchy harms men and boys as well?

Like maybe we should care about male loneliness and the male suicide rate BECAUSE MAYBE WED HAVE LESS SOCIETAL PROBLEMS if 100% of the population wasn’t traumatized by gendered expectations and not being taught decent communication skills/how to be emotionally vulnerable. And definitely we would if fucking redpill echo chambers weren’t the places most willing to accept and nurture (groom into hateful ideology) young men.

The problem has never been men, cis or trans, being uniquely capable of evil the problem has always been the fact that cishet patriarchal culture encourages and rewards shitty behavior that makes everyone involved bitter and miserable and calls it masculinity.

[catboiarson]

This is not like a fully completed thought but yk

So I've done my first aid + CPR a few times. And every single time I try and bring up scenarios for fat folks

Specifically like 'what if someone is too large for me to wrap my arms around then to do the heimleich'

And its incredibly rare I get a decent answer.

How absolutely insane is it that me, as a fat person, is asking how to have MY life saved or to save ANOTHER life, is an impossible feat if someone is fat.

Most of the time they tell me to 'just try anyways uwu'

There has got to be a better option.

[catboiarson]

[catboiarson]

Oh hey it's the 2nd of August. It's international Romani genocide memorial day. 79 years and still the vast majority of countries don't give a fuck about it nor recognize it. Hell on Earth everywhere

[catboiarson]

Ok, loves, so we've all got the message that joking about suicide is bad for your mental health. Now we need to get on "joking that the planet/all of humanity has no future is bad for societal health/encouraging resistance to bad shit."

[catboiarson]

if you're going to be mad at someone focus on their actions not their intelligence. intelligence isn't a measure of goodness

using brain damage as an insult isn't a better alternative to using the r word. brain damage doesn't cause bigotry, and it's not the punchline for a joke. you know you can express astonishment at someone's actions without implying they must have brain damage. brain injuries aren't the end of someone's worth as a person. like are you even aware there's various types of brain injury.

[catboiarson]

Okay so bad news for everyone on YouTube right now

Starting the 13th, we will have an AI determine if we are children or not and if you are a child, than you are forced to send your ID, send a selfie or a credit card

This has the obvious cons of having your privacy being revoked from you and and in case there is a security breach, major identity thefts.

So what do we do in this scenario?

Well right now I have real idea as this is relativity new to me, but I do have two plans

Plan 1. Bug the shit out of them, send letters and send emails about how much of bad idea this is.

Include why the AI will mess up and target adults who watch cartoons, include privacy issues, censorship issues, anything you can think of that relates to this. I want you guys to bug the hell out of YouTube until they reverse this idea

Plan 2. Blackout.

Since the thing is coming out on the 13th.

The plan will be to completely avoid YouTube at all cost for that day, no watching, no sharing, no uploading, no nothing.

Download videos before things go down, watch Netflix. Whatever you do, don’t touch YouTube.

That’s all I can say right now, I also want you guys to let YouTubers know of this situation cause if it’s important for everyone on the website to talk about this immediately

Spread this stuff around, let people know of YouTube’s upcoming policy and how it’ll hurt everyone