#Neither of them are Binary but neither of them use any labels for the experience they have

[kakusu-shipping]

Happy Pride Month Emile!!! 🖤🩶🤍💜 🩷💛🩵 🖤🩶🤍💚🤍🩶🖤 and 🏳️‍🌈 for Mario/Luigi + anyone else in the royal polycule you wanna do!!! ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜

HAPPY PRIDE TO YOU TOO ANON!!!!

Oooooh the instant desire to just to the entire polycule but I just did my Mario ship chart that showed all of them.... I'll keep it to like the Core Five.

Ask from here

Mario - He/Him, Trans Man, Panromantic Asexual

Luigi - He/Him, Gender Non Conforming, Bisexual

Peach - She/Her, Trans Woman, Panromantic Asexual

Daisy - She/They, Butch Lesbian

Bowser - He/Him, Intersex, Bisexual

[this-is-exorsexism]

I just saw a post about how transmasc and transfem aren't labels you can "opt out of," how if you transition like this then you ARE transmasc and if you transition like that then you ARE transfem, whether you like it or not. Because it's just a "fact" about your transition, not an identity.

And it just made me so sad. I'm transneutral. Sure, my transition might look binary to an outside observer. Yeah, people might look at me now and see me as far more masculine than I was before I transitioned. But that's other people. Not me.

Does this count as exorsexism? I feel like it does but I'm also worried that they're right, and maybe my identity is offensive and maybe I AM lying for not calling myself transmasc. I don't know. I just feel really bad and insecure right now.

this is exorsexism.

through and through.

i'm assuming this post was by a trans person, because cis people tend to be less educated about trans terminology in the first place, and will often just parrot whatever is popular but not think of it any further.

a lot of trans people, even some nonbinary people, seem to be really invested in upholding the gender binary in its various forms. "these are the two options you have, and you cannot be neither" is just gender binary 2.0.

people want to group especially nonbinary people by our AGAB, because a lot of people can't handle the fact that us simply saying "i'm nonbinary" doesn't give them any information about our AGAB, about "where we came from" the way that "trans woman" or "trans man" does. never mind the fact that some intersex people who were (c)afab are trans women and some intersex people who were (c)amab are trans men, but these people usually aren't just exorsexist, they're intersexist too. if the term "trans woman" doesn't necessarily tell you what gender someone was assigned at birth anymore, apparently the term loses all its meaning, since everything hinges on AGAB... somehow. but i digress.

and people have definitely started using transmasculine and transfeminine as "acceptable" shorthands for AGAB language, whether they admit it or not. if you were afab, your only options are cis woman, trans man or transmasculine nonbinary, and if you're transmasculine nonbinary we treat you like a man anyway, and vice versa for amab folk.

bonus points if it all hinges on transition steps, i.e. if you were amab and take oestrogen, you're automatically transfem regardless of how you identify (and if you don't take enough transition steps you're basically cis anyway - their line of thinking, not mine).

because we're definitely dismantling cissexism by still acting as if hormones are inherently masculine or feminine. we're definitely deconstructing the gender binary by just changing the words from male and female to transmasc and transfem. (heavy sarcasm)

so much of it goes back to people really just upholding cissexism and the binary, probably without even realising it. by saying it's about "what we were born as" or about how we transition, people are just using the same violence on nonbinary people as cis people use on all trans people. just because cis people assume you're masculine, trans people somehow think it's what you want and do it as well.

transmasc and transfem nonbinary people obviously exist. it's part of many people's identity. others actually do just use the term as a shorthand to what they're transitioning from, where they're transitioning to, how they're transitioning, certain experiences of transmisia, etc. and that's fine - if you use it like that for yourself and don't force it onto others.

and people also love framing words that have a heavy nonbinary association as somehow offensive, dirty or otherwise bad. people will go so far to avoid saying the word "nonbinary", they hate the word "enby", in fact, they hate when we have any term that is more specific than nonbinary, and they also hate our trans- terms, be it transneutral, transandrogynous or the many others. they really hate when we're actually somewhat equal.

[themaveriqueagenda]

some signs you might be maverique*

1. you feel like terms like "man" and "woman" don't apply to you at all. this is pretty self-explanatory.

2. you have a distinct sense of gender. your gender feels as specific and as clearly defined as manhood and womanhood. you are not genderless.

3. you relate to having a neutral gender, but not entirely. because gender neutrality is a well-known concept, it's not uncommon for maveriques to first explore and relate to that when they first realise they are nonbinary, however neutrality still tends to feel "off" or "not quite right".

4. your gender feels unusual, even to yourself. because maveriquehood exists independently from the gender binary and gender neutrality, it can be hard to put it into words, find history or people you relate to. being maverique can come with great feelings of alienation even from other nonbinary people due to binary expectations. maveriques may feel "weird among the weirdos".

5. your gender is neither in between male or female nor a mix of them. this one is self-explanatory. maveriques tend to feel far away from both binary genders.

6. you don't relate to femininity, masculinity or androgyny. some maveriques don't use any terms that are derived from binary genders, even terms for gender expression or transition goals.

7. you feel like your gender is "just you". some maveriques feel like their gender is truly unique to themselves, cannot be separated from their being and is best defined as "just them".

8. you simply like the term or flag. if you've already narrowed down a few terms for your gender that are similar and could all apply, it's totally valid to choose your label on the word and/or flag you find most aesthetically pleasing.

don't know what maverique means? check the pinned post on this blog.

*of course a lot of these "signs" also apply to other genders, and not all of them will apply to every maverique. this is in no way meant as a checklist you must fulfill to be maverique, merely a guide that may help people figure themselves out. especially multigender maveriques may have different experiences from the above.

[nonbinary-polls]

Hey, someone sent you an anon about being neither binary nor nonbinary and you responded saying that that makes them nonbinary. I just wanted to clear that up a little

I understand the sentiment, I used to think that way too. But gender is way more complex than that, so not everyone falls in the binary of binary/nonbinary.

For example, I'm a genderqueer man. I don't consider myself binary or nonbinary. I don't feel binary because of the way I experience my gender being too queer for that. I don't feel nonbinary because I am a man, a whole man, regardless of that genderqueerness. So I use genderqueer in place of binary/nonbinary.

I'm not the only person who feels this way. There are lots of other genderqueer who don't feel binary/nonbinary, and I assume there's likely people who don't identify with any of those three words.

I just wanted to put that out there. Thanks for hearing me out

this is a lot of text

i'm glad to hear your story! i reblogged the original post with this, but i'll put it here too:

gender is chaos and you can pick whatever labels you want and do whatever you want with it forever. no one (okay, no one here) is forcing you to pick a specific label, you can be labelless, you can have all the labels, do whatever you want with it

sorry if i made anyone feel pressured with that post -.-

[transtalesofdoom]

The Label Thing - personal experience

I've talked previously about labels I've considered, used, or decided not to use in passing. Let's talk about it in a bit more detail!

I like labels. It's a personal preference, and I understand why someone wouldn't, but I like having words to describe myself with. I like having a handful of terms to explain my experiences quickly. I also like knowing that there's more people with these experiences, grouped under my label. Makes it feel a little less lonely.

Before the whole gender thing, I had already picked out the labels of biromantic asexual. Gender never really meant anything to me, and why would I care about stuff like genitals if I didn't intend to interact with them. Opted for bi over pan because it sounded nicer and the flag was prettier.

And then the gender thing happened and I suddenly had an entirely new experience to describe. One that was still developing.

The first day after I had come out to myself, I neither liked the term "man" nor "trans" for myself. Both seemed too solid for what I was. I was a dude or a guy, but a man? There's the whole societal aspect to it, how trans men can get treated poorly for "becoming the enemy", that I won't get into here, but it definitely was at play. And "trans" had an oddly definitive feeling to it. Like I had a gender and goal in mind, when I very much didn't. This was weird to me, because I knew that's not how the label is used. Anything that isn't cis can be labeled as trans. But at first it felt like I was appropriating it.

Nonbinary was a pretty safe catch-all. I was, by the very definition, not binary. Nor did I think anyone else was, but that was beside the point. Genderqueer was another option worth considering, since my gender was most definitely queer, but something about it didn't really click with me. Maybe it was the flag and the fact that certain trans-exclusionists used the same colors because they fancied themselves suffragettes.

I became a little more comfortable with it as the compound of transmasc. That was me. I was transing into the masculine. Not very committal, but a descriptor of what I was up to with the gender.

I still liked the term "woman", weirdly enough. Having watched so many Woman-Power movies (shoutout to Oceans 8 and Birds of Prey specifically), it had taken a while for me to fully embrace that label to begin with, and once I had managed to find it empowering, I didn't want to let go of it again. Even if I was transmasc, "Woman" by Kesha was too good of a song to leave behind. I was a motherfucking woman!

I did a bit more snooping around into other labels to see if anything would stick. I found and read the comics by ND Stevenson, and came across the ones where he describes being bigender. And I liked that description. It resonated with me. Especially because he references the Kesha song, I guess. 'Vibrating between genders too fast to see' felt relatable. So maybe I was bigender?

But I wasn't vibrating between male and female. Those were a part of it, sure, but there was more. And also less. I was every gender and no gender simultaneously. And while that is a possible subgroup of bigender, it once again felt like using the term, although I liked it, wouldn't properly convey my experience.

That night I decided to coin "fuckgender", only to discover that not only did this label already exist, but it also described exactly what I was feeling. (Not to be confused with genderfuck.) And yet, while that was a fun little anecdote, it wasn't what I wanted from a label. And the fact that other people were using it, thereby turning it into a functioning microlabel, made it less appealing to me, somehow.

Instead, I decided to embrace "trans" as an umbrella term for the time being. I didn't really need to define it any further. "transmasculine nonbinary" worked well enough to convey my identity to others. I could elaborate for those who wanted to know more. For myself, the label was the same as my gender. It was kinda there and kinda not, both everything and nothing all at once. More of a general vibe than an actual word.

And that works for now. Maybe that will change. Probably, even. I might embrace bigender, or multigender, I might find my trans experience to be binary enough to go by trans man. Maybe I'll do a U-turn and become a nonbinary woman.

There's only one way to find out and personally, I'm excited for it.

[theswiftheartsystem]

@returntothesoup asks:

“Hi! We’re new to interacting with more systems and are unfamiliar with some terms folks us! Any chance you could throw out some definitions for like plurals and multiples and stuff? We just became aware on a grand sense in the last couple years and are working through a lot of stuff alone. Happy to find systems to get to know🫶🏻🩷”

Hello! Welcome to the Tumblr community! It can be toxic at times, so please take care of your mental health! You can block certain tags (like triggers, or communities and such!

Origin: this is referring to what causes the system to form, the most common ones used are Traumagenic, and Endogenic, however it is a spectrum, and also some systems are multi-origin!

Traumagenic: This is referring to systems formed due to childhood trauma. This does not mean every alter is created by trauma.

Endogenic: A spectrum term that refers to systems who formed without trauma. This does not mean they do not have trauma, or that they are faking, it just means they experience plurality outside of what the mainstream idea of plurality is. A example is religious formed systems! (Also to clarify, when I say it’s a spectrum term, look at it like how non-binary is used, some people use it as a label, and some use it as a spectrum, neither is less valid then the other.

Tulpamancy: although a lot of the time this gets grouped with Endogenic, I’d thought I’d explain it since it is quite different. For one, there is many names that are used to describe this. Obviously Tulpamancy, but also Willowgenic, Tulpagenic and Thoughtform. This basically describes the experience of creating a being in your mind sometimes called a Tulpa. This practice originates from an ancient Tibetan Buddhist practice.

Splitting/Forming: Splitting is when an alter splits a part of themselves off and creates a fragment, and/or alter. It is possible to split multiple alters at once. Forming is a term that a lot of Endo systems in our experience prefer. Personally we like to use the term when the alter didn’t split off from trauma, but both can be used interchangeably a lot of the time.

Fusion: This is when two or more alters fuse together and create a different alter that is not the same, but all of them at once in a sense (a good way to think of this, is if you put two things of playdoh together and mush it into one, it’s now both of those colors and together they make a new color! Both colors are still there, but they are now mixed together.) Also this is not the same thing as integration. Fusion isn’t always a good thing, and can be caused by traumatic events.

Integration: This is the process of Amnesia barriers lessening. This leads to better communication and less black outs and grey outs.

Blurry: Blurry is when you cannot tell who’s in front.

Blended: Multiple alters are blended together while in front. This can go hand and hand with being Blurry very easily.

Co-Con: This is usually when alters talk to each other outside the inner world! This describes one or more alter is in front, and one or more alters who are conscious, but are not fronting.

Co-Fronting: This is when two or more alters are fronting, but aren’t blended. A example would be: one alter can control the body, while one controls speaking.

Headspace: So some systems use this to describe that little area in your head where you and alters talk, but some use it to describe that and the innerworld.

Innerworld: This is a world internally that alters often go when they aren’t fronting. Not every alters can enter into the innerworld. It’s very common for host to not be able to enter, especially at the beginning. Some systems don’t even have innerworlds as well.

Alters/Headmates/Parts: These are the most common terms to describe different beings within one body. Alters is used most in Traumagenic spaces, while Headmate is very commonly used in Endogenic spaces. These terms can be used by all systems regardless of origin. (We personally feel most comfortable with alters, which is why we have been using it in this post.)

Switching: This is when alters switch who’s in front.

Anyway, that’s some basic terminology! If you, or anyone else would like more of this, feel free to use the ask box! We made it so you can be anonymous now!

-Anthy

[cock-holliday]

When I first came out as trans I knew I wasn’t my AGAB, and my transition goal was to be cis-passing. I eventually got there, only to find that something was missing. And during that stage I realized I was not a woman or a man.

I stopped identifying with either binary, and flirted with labels like transmasc or trsnsfemme, but found that both fit various stages of my fluctuating identity. Depending on how I wished to be read I took passing tips from trans men and trans women both. I thought to use both terms but then primarily using whichever was more accurate at the time.

I know multigender people have used terms like transfemmasc. I don’t know if that fits me, but I realized that IDing as transfemme made people think I never had a transmasc experience and IDing as transmasc made people assume of course I didn’t know what anything transfemme was like.

Regardless of if I leaned towards female or male, my gender was always fairly masculine. I liked the broadness of the word “butch.” There are transmasc butches AND transfemme butches. Men and women can use it! Butch tells you nothing beyond “queerly masculine.”

My attraction to men and my attraction to women feels equally queer to me! I do not feel compatibility with straight men OR straight women.

It’s very tricky to figure out where in trans experience I fit, having seen…a lot. And plenty of it contradicts itself. Not only is it a nonbinary experience but there are aspects of transfeminity and transmasculinity that I connect to. What does that make me?

And regardless of how I feel, how I get read has been such a spectrum. Cis man, cis woman, trans man, trans woman? Not really any of them but also kind of some of them?

“AMAB experience” “AFAB experience” yeah two polar binaries with no overlap. “TMA” vs “TME” right, transphobes know your history and know whether you’re allowed to be targeted in certain ways.

Are you nonbinary in a girl way or a boy way?

Trans spaces reinvent boy vs girl shit over and over and over again. What if you’re neither? What if you’re both? What if you fluctuate?

An oscillating fan DOES move left-to-right but it’s not a left-to-right turning fan! Or not ONLY! It’s something else entirely!

[your-bigender-big-brother]

The bigender experience is absolutely variable. You can have two static genders or be fluid between them. You can have two whole genders or two partial genders. One of those genders can be genderless and maybe neither of them are binary. You could have two genders that are very similar. They can overlap. They can be separated.

You can also choose to use bigender-related microlabels, like femache or ambigender, or you can just choose to call yourself bigender. You also don't have to use any labels to describe what your genders do, like genderfluid or genderflux. Or you can use several labels at once to describe what your bigender experience means.

There are so many way to be bigender and you shouldn't feel like you are limited to labels or by how other people define you.

- Your Bigender Big Brother 💙💚

[calaphort]

hey just a heads up, and really to just be genuinely informative please don't take any of this the wrong way or assume malice or anything I'm just bad at conveying tone.

m-spec does NOT mean men specifically, it's just "multisexual spectrum" which basically includes anyone who is attracted to more than one gender and does not strictly imply men/women or any specific gender.

So someone who identifies as an m-spec lesbian for example isn't actually attracted to men for one and to be blunt, it's very lesbophobic to assume that's what it means.

Most m-spec lesbians use it to explicitly state they're attracted to binary women along with anyone who is non-binary/presents a specific way they find aligns with their attraction.

Sexuality overall is absolutely not strict, and it would be reductive and heteronormative to think of it that way, people use sexuality labels to better signal to other people their own experiences, not to be put into another strict box of societal expectations.

Again, I'm not trying to be rude or condescending or anything!!! just trying to be informative because a lot of people just don't understand/realize. (I've had friends literally think m-spec meant male-spectrum or masc-spec)

It is just really difficult to convey tone over text and I know a lot of people who have this misunderstanding are often used to immediately attacked for it instead of being informed and I want to make it very clear that is not my intention, I'm so so sorry if it comes off that way. I am just bad at conveying tone.

Hi anon. Don’t worry you’re not coming across as rude!! I hope I’m understanding what you’re saying, if not feel free to send another ask. But yeah what you’re saying makes sense. I wanna be clear; I meant to say, I don’t want people who are men/people attracted to men that identify as a lesbian to interact with me, cause they’re not lol. The term lesbian means NON men attracted to NON men, which of course includes non binary folk (like myself) and anyone else who identifies neither as a woman or a man, etc etc. If I should change it from mspec lesbians I’m wondering what I should put to get the message across, because “mspec lesbian” was the term I saw mostly used to argue men can be lesbians - which again, I don’t want those people to interact with me cause this is my blog and I don’t want them here! But again if I’m missing something or being reductive please explain !!

[archival-arrival]

MixteGender

a gender that can be described as or similar to anonbinary, aporagender, genderfluid and/or quoigender/wtfgender. it is neither binary nor nonbinary, neither feminine, masculine, neutral or nonbinary but also all of those things together in a unified-null way, a completely different thing outside the binary apart from being nonbinary. it may fit under the nonbinary umbrella for some but it specifically doesnt because its detachment and simultaneous connection to both the binary and nonbinary. it feels like a fourth sort of experience of gender, neither neutral nor androgynous, not agender nor void or nullgender, not directly "girl/woman" or "boy/man".

those who use this gender may fluctuate in how they express their gender, this may be influenced by ones neurodivergence, disorders or any mental illness one may have, therefore making it a neurogender but does not have to be.

this gender falls under many different labels with similar descriptions and experiences but at the same time still doesn't quite fit them, making it very hard to understand and define ones gender.

Etymology:

Mixte -> French, meaning Mixed/Joint pronunciation = "Mixed-aye/Mix-tay"

+ Gender

Mixte May be used as a prefix for genders related to or similar/coined under this gender as subjenders. You may use this as a gender system.

tagging for reach, feel free to ask to be removed! @the-yanderess, @kitti-coining, @zelle-exe, @gender-mailman, @lovelessmogai, @brutalmogai

[hymnsofheresy]

drop it... i'm struggling to understand so pls drop it. how do you understand the essentiality of sex in female oppression (i do not mean this in like an anti-trans way) but also the essentiality of gender dysphoria and it's connection to gender identity and transphobia. And ultimately how do those thing relate to christianity... especially from a non-protestant christian approach?? I'm sorry i know i just asked a lot.. but i need help understanding. i promise i'm not trying to be mean /g

Firstly, it needs to be known that every single person functions under a variety of paradigms. There is no such thing as an pure unfiltered Christian perspective. There is no monolithic understanding of gender identity amongst trans or cis people. People do not exist in a vacuum, but exist within an intersections of different cultures and worldviews. You and I are likely never going to be able to fully understand anyone's perspective outside of our own. And even our own perspective is hard to grasp sometimes. I will tell you where I am coming from, but I do not expect you to fully understand me.

The Bible verse that I often meditate on a lot is Galatians 3:28. It sets up a variety of dualistic social constructs, and upheavals them. Gender is one of these constructs: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This tells us that our intrinsic nature as humans is oneness with God, and everything else are constructs of our humanity, for better or worse.

I am not the only Christian out there who does not see gender roles as God-ordained. There are a lot of saints and Christians in history that don't exactly perform their assigned gender at birth, such as St. Thecla, St. Wilgefortis, Brother Marina, and the Public Universal Friend. And in general the numerous existence of Eunichs (both involuntary and voluntary) in Christian history already disrupted the notions of a strict gender binary.

Fundamentally, I see gender as a construct, a means in which people navigate society. Like all constructions, they tend to be founded on some understanding of material reality. The capacity to reproduce and breastfeed distinguished what makes someone a "woman" in the majority of cultures. Visibly this takes the form of breasts and a vagina/uterus, but in reality, what matters is what breasts and uteri do (or are "supposed" to do). For this reason, I often find it helpful to understand traditional gender as labor categories. The category of "women" historically describes the the workforce of "reproductive labor." As with all labor, within the structures of capitalism (and any other hierarchical societies) reproductive labor is exploited. This is why sex-based oppression is "real."

I see the disruption of our notions of gender as a good thing. It helps us understand that our oppression is not intrinsic, that we don't have to comply with the labor expectations assigned to us through our gender.

I do not really know nor do I really fucking care if gender dysphoria is "essential" or not. What I do know is that dysphoria causes profound suffering for many trans people. I know for certain transitioning, physically and/or socially, can be a euphoric experience for many trans people. To deny trans people a sense of belonging in their own bodies because it makes others uncomfortable is cruel and unnecessary. I think the mere existence of the trans liberation movement helps liberate all people from being coerced or forced into gendered labor.

As for my personal identity, I am a woman because I find solidarity through the label of womanhood, not because I "feel" like a woman. There is nothing "essential" about me that makes me a woman because there is no male or female in Christ Jesus.

Many people do not see me as a woman because I refuse to participate in many aspects of femininity and am not heterosexual. Some people do not see me as a woman because I have "masculine" features due to my higher testosterone levels. And truth be told, I do not give two shits if people do not see me as a woman. I am not a woman for them, I am a woman because I find it to be an effective label to struggle against the patriarchy with. I do not need people to understand my own identity.

[pansyfemme]

hey i just found your blog and wanted to let you know that your gender expression is exactly what i want for myself, but i'm so afraid of getting there.

I identified as nonbinary for four years before I started T and soon after that realized I was just a binary trans man. I used to dress pretty feminine a lot of the time, I used to wear a lot of makeup, jewelry, skirts and dresses, etc and I wasn't ashamed of it. I even would dress up in drag sometimes, and I still have all of that stuff. but I also had really severe dysphoria that was so debilitating. when I started T and first began to pass, I gained a bunch of weight and no longer fit a lot of my feminine clothes. And I stopped dressing feminine at all.

For months I was soaking up the euphoria of now passing as male, it was so amazing and such a huge relief. I liked being masculine a lot of the time, I gradually ended up turning into a bear, and I loved that. But eventually I started to miss my old style, I missed wearing makeup and I missed it all. I started wearing earrings again to work, my boss always comments on them that she loves them, and it makes me happy. But it's not enough.

I have really deeply ingrained internalized homophobia, it's probably something I need to work on but right now I have a lot else on my plate. I live in a blue state, in a progressive city, I've never experienced any LGBT hate personally directed at me, but the fear is still there. I'm also terrified of people assuming I'm nonbinary again, because I know with my heart that isn't me. I'm a man, there is no question to my maleness at all to me. It took me a long time to realize that. Even now that I pass, my dysphoria fears are still there, and I fear that dressing how I want to would cause people to misgender me again, but this time as nonbinary instead of female.

I have a bunch of money in gift cards at this one costume/vintage store I got most of my old stuff at, I want to go and revamp my closet with stuff that fits me now, but I'm so afraid now that I pass as male. I'm afraid of the judgmenet, trying to be a feminine man when I am neither skinny nor hairless.

Do you have any words of advice at all? Looking at the photos in your pinned post, you give me so much gender envy. And we're the same age. I wish I could get to where you are but I have so much fear preventing me. Thank you for your time, hope you are having a wonderful day <3

First of all, thank you for such a sweet honest message. It means a lot that I could be someone you think of to seek advice from.

Given your concerns, i cannot tell you that it's going to be easy. I'm also from a progressive city in a blue state, but even there, i get a lot of rude words shouted from cars, laughs at me, and a lot of hurtful statements pretty reguarly. I also have that issue of people assuming im detranstioning or nonbinary. I'm not saying these things to caution you against it, because I continue to dress the way I do regardless of these things, but I want to be fully honest about how I experience going out in public the way I do. I'm lucky enough to have very supportive friends, teachers and classmates, that are both positive towards, and downright thrilled about the way I present.

I feel very similarly towards my maleness. I identified with various labels in middle and highschool, but remained he/him pronouns and leaned masculine until i realized that perhaps I was just a man who enjoyed presenting femininly. The original transition back to dressing feminine happened while i was still identifying as nonbinary, but already on hrt. For a period of time, i decided to present very differently. I was on hrt, but i shaved all my body hair, wore heavy makeup, and i still had my chest at the time, so i essentially presented as what most would percieve as a cis female but continued to use he/him. This wasn't an act of detransiton, it was actually based on consistant bodyshaming i recieved from another trans person in my life. I'm just spelling this out because at different times in my transiton, i have presented as masculine, feminine, androgynous and something in between both before and after medical transiton. I still have days I choose to take on a more masculine apperance in public for various reasons, though I no longer have the ability to pass as a cis woman. I believe that gender presentation is fully fluid, and I've become pretty comfortable moving between different states of being even when my idenity remains static. What you are percieved as externally has very little to do with your internal idenity, and being fluid in presentation doesn't mean your personal identity is fluid.

For me, the best ways I could manage presenting the way I do is the fact that I have a personal network of people who are very confidently supportive of my choices, as well as seeing a regular therapist who encouraged my crossdressing after seeing how happy it made me. You have to be aware that even if you are already visably queer, this will increase it signifigantly. Queer visability can be good, and theres no way to entirely turn off your visability, but understanding that dressing like this can become stressful or anxiety inducing is a big factor. I, for example, never use gendered public restrooms unless i am presenting masculinely. The main positives of dressing this way is that it can feel really genuine. I don't feel like a girl in makeup and skirts, I feel and look like how I am. You'll also notice a decline in people gendering you specifically transmasculinly. Yes, people will assume you're trans, but you will be left to tell people your actual identity. While having they/them used on you can be an issue, I find people ask your pronouns a lot more often when they can't directly assume he/him or she/her. This has led to me gaining a lot of control over my own coming out, and me being able to tell someone my idenity in my words because they can't fit into boxes immediatly. So yes, people may assume you are nonbinary. However, this can manifest in different ways, including people being less likely to assume things as all, if that makes sense.

The issue with being fat and hairy and presenting femininly can manifest in a lot of ways. It's just an assumption that people make that a man who presents femininly must be skinny, hairless, and submissive. The power we have is being able to show people that that isn't reflective of our community. As a guy on here who's gained a lot of following specifically for being a feminine man who is not what people may expect by that description has lead to a lot of people telling me they've experimented a lot more with gender presentation, and that means a lot. I cannot tell you that people will be polite about it. However, I have experienced a lot of love towards me because of those aspects of me as well, and that's really exciting.

I appriciate the ask. sorry it took a few days.

[multigenderswag]

saw the recent posts about lesbian men and like , to some extent i get how they got there-- if you define "lesbian" as "woman who is NOT attracted to men and IS attracted to women" and then you assume men and women are mutually exclusive because of your internalized phobias, and just kinda let non-binary people (assumed to all be neither men nor women) fall into a murky gray area.... you would go "wait but by claiming a man is a lesbian aren't you also implicitly claiming they're a woman and ~forcing me~ to be attracted to them?"

and it's like. it loops back around to the transmisogyny argument. because literally no one is forcing you to be attracted to or date these people. people have like, personal preferences sometimes. any individual person who is a lesbian and does not want to date men, like, that's fine. that's a personal thing. but it's not a lesbian thing. like.... i think the problem here is people imposing their personal preferences onto a community label just because they don't think they're allowed to..... have preferences in who they date??

like if i never found myself attracted to redheads i wouldn't try to claim that redheads weren't ~real [gender I'm attracted to]~. i would just go "yeah I'm [orientation] and also i never really find myself attracted to [x]". whether that's dicks or vaginas or a hair color or a neurotype (genuinely i don't think i could ever be attracted to a neurotypical. that's ok that's just how it is for me), like..... brains are weird. attraction is weird. you don't have to make it a Big Thing about everyone who is attracted to that gender. you don't have to make it about that gender.

like.... the actual definition of lesbian is so broad and so beautiful and so queer. and I'm sure there are plenty of lesbians that are not attracted to men (regardless of whether or not they are also women) and that's fine, like. there are definitely weirder attraction patterns than that. but it's really not that hard to go "yeah I'm a lesbian and also I've never found myself attracted to men" as if it's an actual personal preference. since it is.

anyway uh sorry to ramble in your inbox?? but yeah like, as someone who is a man + faux woman (like knockoff woman. soy-derived woman) uhh... yeah. lesbians are cool as shit and especially lesbians with male-aligned genders or transmasc/butch presentation. all the respect in the world from me

I'm not sure if I've publicly come out as a redhead on this blog, but I am a redhead, so I just found it extremely funny that you used redheads as your example of people you don't find attractive. Like damn, okay, just target me like that :/ (lighthearted)

Anyway, that aside, yeah! Even if I disagree with the anti male lesbian discourse, I can see how one would get from point A to point B. It's entirely understandable to have a knee-jerk reaction to "lesbians can be attracted to/be men," since a lot of lesbians- including me, way back in the day when I used to identify as a lesbian- really can't be attracted to men. And have had a lot of negative experiences trying to force themselves to be attracted to men, or having other people pressuring them to be attracted to men. So I can see where the discomfort comes from.

However- say it with me, kids- discomfort is not a moral judgement.

Yes, it can feel invalidating. No, that feeling does not give you the right to say "this identity that makes me uncomfortable is bad, end of story."

I think another problem, like you said, is that people conflate "SOME lesbians have a male gender, or SOME lesbians experience some attraction to men," with "ALL lesbians are obligated to date/sleep with men," when that's just not the case. An argument I've seen a lot is that men will use mspec lesbians as an excuse to pressure a non-mspec lesbian into dating them or sleeping with them. Which ignores a very important, very fundamental concept: NO MEANS NO.

If a man is hitting on a lesbian, and the lesbian says no, it doesn't actually matter whether that lesbian was attracted to men, or whether some lesbians can be attracted to men. All that matters is that that person said no. If the man in this scenario disregards that, it's not the fault of mspec lesbians; it's the fault of a man who didn't stop when he was told to stop.

In general, I think it's fairly easy to understand that "some members of x community do y" does not mean "all members of x community do y" or "most members of x community do y" or even "all members of x community should do y." Communities are diverse!

Take this example: "I'm Jewish, and I keep kosher. Some Jews don't keep kosher. Keeping kosher is an important part of my Jewish identity, but it's not part of their Jewish identity, and that's okay. That doesn't make them not Jewish, and that also doesn't mean I have to stop keeping kosher. Just because some Jews don't keep kosher, that doesn't give someone the right to insist I eat a bacon cheeseburger." This is a rational thing to say. I think most people would agree with what is being said here.

However. "I'm a lesbian, and I'm not attracted to men. Some lesbians are attracted to men. Lack of attraction to men is an important part of my lesbian identity, but it's not part of their lesbian identity, and that's okay. That doesn't make them not lesbian, and that also doesn't mean I have to be attracted to men. Just because some lesbians are attracted to men, that doesn't give someone the right to insist I sleep with a man." This follows the same logic, but is somehow a very controversial statement.

Because of the negative experiences so many lesbians have had due to not being attracted to men, it may be harder to reach the "and that's okay" point in the lesbian example than in the kosher example. I understand this. However, like you said, that doesn't mean they can enforce this for all lesbians.

And like you said, preferences are a thing that exist. Lesbians do not have to be attracted to every single other lesbian out there. Not being attracted to someone doesn't mean they're not a lesbian.

Lesbians are a diverse community, which is awesome. None of the ways to be a lesbian are wrong or bad just because they're different from each other.

[qweerhet]

what do you think of the argument that being TMA isn't just about what individual randos think of you, but rather about the societal perception of transfems as a whole? so a non-binary person who was AFAB, but has an androgynous appearance and is clocked as transfem will definitely have a shit experience, but they're not raised in a society that explicitly says they're a gross predator who should die (intersecting oppressions notwithstanding), so they're not TMA, even if they get caught in the crossfire sometimes. kind of like sikh get attacked by Islamophobes, but only Muslims are treated as inherently violent and backwards by society at large. I hope I'm conveying it correctly, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing so I'm rephrasing someone else's argument.

eh, i mean, i'm incredibly dubious of the idea that how "individual randos" treat you is meaningfully distinct from how "society as a whole" treats you.

like, you don't really need to be "clocked as transfem" in order to experience transmisogyny, in my experience? it isn't really about people thinking you're a trans woman specifically, inasmuch as it's about the ways that systems are set up to treat people with certain lived experiences.

i.e. if you are a person with tits and a dick and facial hair who identifies as a woman and uses she/her, different parts of society will treat you a certain way regardless of if you were afab, amab, or neither. you're automatically included in any and all "the existence of a penis as violence against women" rhetoric and ideology, for example, and any material fallout of that rhetoric will apply to you as much as it does anyone else with a penis. your assigned gender at birth or identity status as "transfem" or "transmasc" or "intersex" or whatever identity label you choose doesn't really factor into that material experience. you're still a victim of transmisogynistic rhetoric that societally portrays penises as incompatible with womanhood and a threat to other women.

like... yeah, i think transmisogyny is systemic and embedded in how systems treat trans people, i just don't think that an identity label can negate someone being individually affected by those systemic factors. my sister is a transmasculine person who was amab and has been on estrogen + blockers for many many years; when she decided to start identifying as transmasculine, it didn't magically negate all of the systemic transmisogyny she is affected by. (simultaneously, the transmisogyny she faces also doesn't negate the transmisandry she's been dealing with for the past few years, either, but that's a derailment.)

in your example, maybe that nonbinary person is tma? there's a ton of other factors that go into someone's relationship to transmisogyny other than just "has an androgynous appearance," and honestly that's part of why i'm frustrated with trying to boil it down to being about agab or identity labels.

like, is that person gatekept from women's spaces because of their appearance/sex markers? are they portrayed as a sexual predator? do people sexualize even their mundane actions and associate them with sex work, even if they have nothing to do with that line of work? have they been arrested for carrying a condom? do they face extreme bad faith criticism of all their actions, particularly in comparison to the cis women around them? are they treated as disposable within the queer community in a transmisogynistic way? do people perceive their attempts at feminine styles of dress/makeup as failing to be a real woman? are they told that they're too angry, violent, loud, etc, and that these things are because of their "male socialization?" are they experiencing medical transmisogyny? all of these are things that people who were afab can experience, along with people who were amab and people who were neither.

[beta-adjacent]

If transmasc is an umbrella term for transmen, masc nonbinaries, etc and transfem is an umbrella term for transwomen, Fem nonbinary etc and trans neutral for those that feels they’re neither Fem or masc etc. what would be the equivalent to trans dynamic Alpha/Beta/Omega? Cause I know while biology wise it would fall under these terms it seems so restrictive and just focusing on the sex biological parts which may be the point of a/b/o, but like idk as an asexual I feel like they would be separate terms due to a/b/o not being the ‘normal’ human. Yknow?

I am not a linguist, so I wouldn’t be the person to turn to for crafting some new terminology, haha. But this did get me lost in some philosophy sauce so here’s the product of that:

For the sake of establishing a foundation, let’s say the following are the “original/traditional/common” transdynamic terms:

General: Transdynamic, adynamic*, dynamfluid/dynamifluid

Transition states (in the format of the primary notion “mtf”): atb, ato, bta, bto, ota, otb

Some thoughts on these terms:

The terms don’t have to solely equate to a change in sexual organs, because secondary biology isn’t exclusively sexual. You could focus on a surgery that stops the formation of a knot, sure. But you could also focus on HRT that alters the hormones that make you smell like your adab (assigned dynamic at birth?), which is arguably very non-sexual. I think it’d be hard to change the non-sexual without changing the sexual, but you can still make the non-sexual elements the emphasis. So I’m actually rather ok with the terms we have now if the argument is they seem too sexual, because they don’t feel very sexual to me

That being said, these terms do feel very biologically driven and limiting. You only have about 6 options in the transition states? That’s quite binary

*I don’t think I’ve actually seen the word adynamic used. Instead, authors refer to an adynamic person as a delta. And this classification is where the mindfuckery starts for me

Because tertiary dynamics cover a level of transness in secondary dynamics. By definition, a tertiary dynamic typically describes someone who biologically aligns to their adab, but not socially. Or, in some cases, they cover the “miscellaneous” category of secondary genders, ie experiencing all 3 dynamics, or none of the dynamics.

So now we have to question: how intertwined are the ideas of secondary body versus secondary instinct/soul? Below are some examples of people with this “body vs instinct” nuance:

Skye is a cis male. They were born a beta. Skye biologically feels no discomfort/dysphoria in their current body. But socially/instinctively, they have the soul of an alpha. What do we call Skye?

Dusk is a cis female. They were born an omega. Dusk feels extreme dysphoria in their body because of their dynamic, but their omega instinct feels calming/natural to them. What do we call Dusk?

Star is intersex. They were also born with mixed dynamic biology. What is the term for that? Would it be two intersex conditions (primary-intersex and secondary-intersex), or would we classify it as intersex and a tertiary dynamic?

Moon experiences all three dynamics at once bodily but does not relate to any of them socially/mentally. What do we call Moon?

Gender labels are limiting —regardless of if it’s primary, secondary, or tertiary— because they’re an attempt to classify something that often can’t be classified in a simplistic/binary way. Having labels to describe every complexity is impossible because complexity is infinite. Having umbrella terms is almost guaranteed to be limiting and/or reducing to the complexity itself.

Soooooo…… fuck labels! Or make them whatever you want in your verse, just stay consistent and, more importantly, make it meaningful when it’s not consistent. Include characters with nuanced dynamics and let readers struggle with the material alongside you

[decolonize-the-left]

This isn’t some conservative trying to get on ur nerves. I’m a socialist and absolutely supportive of the trans community, but I’m really confused about neo pronouns. It seems like it’s just an attention seeking version of being non-binary, what’s the deal with that? What’s the purpose? It’s can’t be euphoric to use xi/xer because that literally doesn’t mean anything

To be completely fair; neither do she/her or he/him or they/them. They're all just words we use to define ourselves. And ourself is the Only person with the right to determine who we are. It means something cuz the person using it has given it meaning.

For context, I'm a deeply autistic nonbinary person who Regularly struggles with the concept of gender to begin with. To give a very Basic rundown of that, I mean to me, personally, it's all just lines drawn in metaphorical sand. Some people wanna be feminine, masculine, both, neither. And that goes for Every sex in existence. Identifying in the experience where those things intersect is human nature. The Name you give that experience of identity is what we call gender.

And everyone wants their gender validated. They want to be perceived as the gender they are.... Because that's what they are. That's their experience.

So what happens when there aren't words for it? What if none of the words fit? What do you do? You still need and crave that some personhood and identity and validation as everyone else on earth.

You need it just as much as the he/hims and she/hers and they/thems.

You make your own, that's what you do.

So maybe it doesn't mean anything to you... But someone else's human experience isn't about you. It's about them and what those words mean to them.

I don't know who you are, anon, but chances are... I dont get your pronouns. I don't get why people choose to label a human experience and strictly regulate it. I don't GET the purpose of turning gender into a performance that has to be performed in specific ways just so other people will respect you and your self-determination. I don't GET why knowing/recognizing our genders outside of our needs as people even matters.

If someone wants a dick or to wear a skirt or makeup or be a football player, why should gender matter? It's just a human experience. Everyone has it. Everyone's relationship to gender is different. How they see themselves is different. How they choose to Perform their gender for validation from their peers is different (personal style).

You knowing your own gender should be enough. And people should be able to act any way they want without having it invalidated.

But alas. My feelings don't change reality.

And the reality is that none of it makes sense to me and that's okay.

it's not about me.

I very strongly believe people have a right to self determination. And that means supporting people even when I don't understand them.

Because THEY know what makes THEM happy.

That too, is a universal human experience, and who am I to tell you that what makes you happy is attention seeking? Who am I to tell anyone that what makes them "euphoric" is nonsensical and shouldn't make them happy? What gives me the right to define an undefinable human experience and enforce my beliefs on everyone else? To use that belief to restrict and judge the infinite experiences and relationships that humans are capable of having with gender?

Sometimes, the purpose of things are simple and with gender it ALWAYS is.

Respecting the pronouns and genders that people determine for themselves makes them happy.

And that should be enough. Why does there need to be more than that?

And also just a lil ps: Who cares if it's attention seeking? Maybe they like attention. So what? Why is that a crime worth invalidating and belittling them?