#So many things with gender being radical in their specific contexts like

[rotzaprachim]

Writing queen’s gambit 60’s au jyn who is hyperfeminine beauty queen/clothes obsessive is the most delightful mind fuck

[librarycards]

hey there cav. this is sort of a fraught question but. how do I engage with psychiatry when I'm antipsych? I need treatment but I have so much distrust and I feel like it's all bullshit. I don't really have a support system and there's few peer support resources in my area. I can't do this myself but I cant trust this system. soooo... tips for finding therapists that don't suck & getting the most of it? really appreciate your blog and posts, thanks

thank you for entrusting this message to me, I appreciate it! I have answered questions like this a few times before (they're buried somewhere, if you can't find them in my "ask" tag, lmk and i'll try to dig them up!). it's definitely fraught inasmuch as we're never (as people who hate psych but need specific, urgent support that communities aren't by default set up to provide) going to get an answer that we 100% want, but also very not-fraught inasmuch as most of us agree that surviving in this sea of partiality is something we can do together, with love and nonjudgement.

so, for context: i was in therapy - first behaviorist OT as a toddler and elementary school child, and, beginning at 7, talk therapy - nonconsensually basically from the time I could remember until adulthood. i likely would never have tried it again, except for the small hiccup of needing letters for Transing Genders. so, this was when i first sought out "trans affirming care," as it were, and i didn't expect much. i went to my college's health center and got a list of possible providers, and ended up getting an excellent PCP, as well as a therapist who was a genuine cis accomplice: she wrote letters for Mad/psych disabled clients whose genders wouldn't typically qualify us for surgery/hormones in the eyes of the M/PsyIC. i did not share with her the things i "ought" to have shared, but she knew I had survived abusive therapy / forced institutionalization, and accepted that, and accepted my cynicism along with it. i was also first genuinely understanding foucault at this time, so rest assured i was quite a little shit (affectionate).

when she left to practice elsewhere, i went to a therapist at the same practice she recommended. she was fine, but not what i needed. by this time, I'd gotten the requisite procedures, so my therapy attendance wasn't required. i basically just ghosted this new therapist around the time covid hit.

when i came to grad school, i initially wasn't looking for therapy, though i had idly considered something for OCD, which I was (and am) managing in part through medication. after getting outright rejected for, essentially, being too crazy for normie OCD therapy, i directed my search specifically for Mad/abolitionist providers. i began by going through some of the archives of places like the National Queer and Trans Therapists of Color Network, and some people who have posted guest articles on Mad in America / The Fireweed Collective -- many are providers seeking to disrupt/abolish the system. That provided some leads, though no openings (there are very few of them, and they are, understandably, in high demand).

I then turned to my community connections: over the years, I've amassed a large number of Mad colleagues in various fields. Many are a half-step from radical/antipsych circles, so I asked them. This time, I asked specifically about a possible therapist who was interested in critiques of "eating disorders" as a category, who had an abolitionist, harm-reductionist, and anti-"health" approach to care, and who, accordingly, refused to cooperate with institutions of psychiatric confinement. I was directed to a list of people, of whom my current and beloved therapist / colleague / comrade was the first to respond.

my trajectory with her has been a steady building of trust through a shared ebbing and flowing of closeness, frustration, enlightenment, and curiosity. it has been close to a year and a half now, and we only began speaking frankly about more "dangerous"/"risky" topics a few months ago. early in our relationship, i did a great deal of boundary-testing, and reacted with anger and shutdown the first time she asked a question that proved risky/activating for me. my biggest recommendation when engaging with ANY provider is to ask them explicitly, repeatedly, and critically about their relationships with your own risk/harm level, their ongoing history wrt patient institutionalization / "referrals" to "higher levels of care". take note about the way they reference past patient situations, as well as their own past experience. take note of how they respond when you choose not to provide the information they seek.

also take note of what info they're willing to provide upfront, including at a consult: what methodologies do they work with, what was their training, how do they feel about said training? what are their politics? ask whoever recommended them to you, too. look at reviews. this is obvious -- what might not be is looking up their work on google scholar. who do they cite? what do they advocate, who do they associate themself with?

i think that it's also a good idea to ask them explicitly about their experience in other/"higher" levels of care - most therapists have done some kind of rotation during their education, often in a hospital, group home, halfway house, similar. if you have ever been institutionalized, you may have even spotted / been abused by some! observe how they discuss these experiences. take note.

if and when you've established this person as someone you want to continue working with, trust notwithstanding, think personally about what you are actually looking for. they will ask you about your goals, surely, but it's a good idea first to think about your own personal goals outside of the verbalized relationship between you two. do you need a confidante, and of what kind? what sort of accountability do you need, and what are you willing to try to figure that out? *what are you paying this person for that you feel others cannot or will not do*? what part of this person's expertise can be of use to you, and for how long?

i think one interesting approach to therapy is to regard the provider as a teacher - they're there to share knowledge with you, and you're free to accept or reject it. they have some kind of training/experience you don't have, and you seek them out because you think it may be of use in your own life, and perhaps even to redistribute that knowledge if and when you gain it. at the same time, you also have knowledge to share with them - not to be extracted, but to be incorporated in their own work and practice. the biggest insight on the practice of good therapy i've gleaned is that, ideally, you're both teaching and learning forever. this is true of all good relationships. there is an exchange of knowledge based on shared trust - values - priorities. once you are in a space where you know that this person shares your general relational orientation (aka, doesn't want to institutionalize, etc. you and people like you) it's possible to begin sharing knowledge in a way that benefits from this imposed structure. the benefit, imo, is that it's okay that you "monopolize" the convo and direct the knowledge-production toward your needs, because that's the service you're paying for!

i guess, to close, i'll return to the classic Mad Pride framing of us as "psych users/consumers." this isn't the perfect term, but i think it's enlightening, as we can and should be able to seek out services that work for us. just like i go to a person who knows wtf they're doing when, say, i need my nails done or my car fixed, so too do i go to an expert interlocutor when i am interested in developing my self-/relational knowledge and/or am seeking support in times of emotional tumult. this doesn't confer them a status as superior to me, just like someone isn't superior to someone else by being a nail tech or mechanic. it simply means that we are entering into a relationship where my needs and their expertise meet. seek a therapist who understands this, and understands themself as someone who can learn from you, too. this approach to therapy, and to care, mean that you can't just throw someone away or lock them up when they say things you don't like. it means that, even in those moments, there is something to be learned, and that the relationship will grow in that process of edification.

[nothorses]

hi! this is a question about pansexuality that i fear asking. tbh i don't really care what anyone identifies as. everyone's part of my community to me. i am trying to wrap my head around bi v pan stuff as someone who is neither. i know bisexuals who are critical of the pan label because to them it distinguishes bisexuality as starkly Not being pansexuality. when definitions of bisexuality have included "attraction regardless of gender, or to all genders (and including trans and nb people)" for many bisexuals since like the 70s which is how i see pansexuality defined a lot of the time

i know that bi and pan have always been concurrent labels and they have a lot of overlap and that some ppl use them interchangeably. and i truly don't care that ppl id as pan. but i do feel weird seeing it juxtaposed to definitions of bisexuality that aren't inclusive of all bisexuals? (ie that bisexuals aren't attracted to ALL genders, just two or more.. when many bisexuals Are attracted to all genders! part of bisexual history is that people have been fighting to let others know Bisexuality is more inclusive than the literal like latin meaning of bi = two). i don't know where to stand on this divide. i love pansexuals and the pan label and the right to self determination in identity but i do understand the argument that it feels hurtful in a biphobic way to say it is inherently a distinct sexuality from being bisexual when it's. like. many bi and pan ppl would define their sexuality in the exact same way other than a difference in specific label. i feel like people hate this opinion lmao!!! please help! even if you hate my opinion too i literally feel like i need guidance KDBDBS

Tbh I think there's a lot of historical context to this whole convo, and I don't think you're alone in being confused. And honestly given the amount of info you have, I think you're in a pretty respectable spot about it. (And I say "historical" here in the sense that I am. 25. and I'm mostly talking about the things I have either seen firsthand, or read about/heard about from others.)

So like- when I was a Young Queer, it was very common for people to define "bi" as meaning "men and women" (or even "cis men and cis women"), and thus "pan" rose to popularity as an alternative to essentially mean "everyone, including trans and nonbinary people".

This was like, early 2010's? And I'm talking about other Young Queer spaces and interactions. And you kind of have to remember that in that time, it was kind of radical to tell people not to call things "gay" if they didn't like them. Joking that people were trans (usually in terms like "lol Justin Beiber is a lesbian") was common even in progressive spaces. I was stunned when a friend of mine asserted that they were just gonna stop using the r-slur, like, at all.

So I can kind of understand why "pan" might have felt like a needed thing at the time. I think it felt like a kind of shorthand for "I'm cool with trans people", and at least from my perspective, that was something you very much needed to state back then.

I think there are a lot of people my age who, if they don't still understand "bi" and "pan" that way, at least kind of "get" where that definition is coming from. And yeah, it's ahistorical as hell! "Bi" has always been inclusive of trans people. Not to mention people have been defining it all sorts of ways for a long time now; there are a ton of definitions out there, and how the word is defined often depends on who you ask.

But then you ask: if we know "bi" is and has always been trans-inclusive, why does anyone still need the word "pan"? And I think the answer is... complicated. And extremely personal, tbh.

This happens with queer language all the time; as terms are cycled out in favor of new ones, people who've been using them hang on regardless. Sometimes they don't know the language has been updated, but usually it's more than that. Usually they have more of a personal relationship with the word, and the community, that they can't just give up in favor of a new word.

Maybe some people who do understand that "bi" is not actually a transphobic term also still view "pan" as shorthand for "I'm cool with trans people", and that's important to them. Maybe they grew up with that word, formed relationships under it, and came out with it. Maybe the pan community impacted them in some profound way, and rejecting it over shifting definitions just doesn't feel right. There could be any number of reasons.

The other part of this is that much as people have come to understand the original definition of "bi" more widely now, the definition of "pan" and "bi" both have taken on multiple definitions as well. I've seen a lot of definitions that seem to exist just to differentiate the two. For example:

Bi: attracted to multiple (but not necessarily all) genders Pan: attracted to all genders

Bi: attracted to all genders, but in different ways, or with preferences Pan: attracted to all genders essentially the same

Bi: attracted to multiple (or all) genders Pan: attraction regardless of gender

I've also seen people use "bi" as the umbrella term, and "pan" as a more specific label beneath it (often with one of those pairs of definitions).

And you mention that "bi" has a lot of different definitions and understandings- so does pan! How a person understands those words, particularly when they identify with them, is going to be deeply personal and very likely very different from the next person. I think a good rule of thumb is to assume that whoever you're talking to may just have a different definition and understanding of the word they're using than you do, and try to ask them about it if it concerns you.

[radfemfox5]

LOL that guy you were arguing with a few days ago changed his entire blog. i think you radicalized him LMFAOOO

here's him still malding about your argument: https://www.tumblr.com/mommabearlaciii/732929534465359873

It's been 3 days, honey. Why are you acting like a martyr? Please move on. Get a job. Or a hobby.

This is doubly hilarious to me because he warns others not to waste their time speaking to radfems while wasting multiple days seething about our conversation, to the point that he changed his whole blog...

Guess I have to address this in its entirety since he won't shut the fuck up about it. Buckle up, gyns.

For some added context as to why I immediately assumed this was a troll when I saw his post, this is what his blog looked like:

Jeez, I thought, what a terrible troll. It was so on the nose as to be comical. I soon realized that he was anything but a troll.

I was incredibly tame in my response to his insanely misogynistic post, to the point where I chided myself afterwards for not going harder on him.

In retrospect, being "civil" with him was the best way to go, as my reblog is simple, concise and clear: woman = female. That's literally it.

In spite of how simple my comment was, he still went on an unhinged rant mere minutes after I pressed reblog. It's honestly not worth reading, but for the sake of transparency I'll include screenshots.

Honestly, I was shocked to see how quickly he typed this whole thing out. Rage must increase your typing speed.

It's pretty funny to me that someone whose blog name used to be "adult human female" got so incredibly mad at me for stating that women are female. Shouldn't you agree with me, if you think trans women are female? Hm.

Following this, I wasn't planning on interacting with him again. I left a one word reply and thought that would be it. He kept replying with questions, which devolved into an extremely long exchange in the replies that had some interesting moments. Like him elaborating on why he believes trans women become female, which boils down to "amalgamation of female-approximate traits = female."

Source for his claim that sex is a bimodal distribution between two poles? No clue.

Basically this:

The graph he provided in lieu of a source:

I'm confused about this graph for multiple reasons, namely, the fact that it conflates sex and gender. Mostly, I'm confused about the extremities. Are the people on the far left of the graph "ultra female", and people on the far right "ultra male"? It's complete nonsense, not to mention that he doesn't provide a link to the source this graph is from, it's a commentated screenshot of a tweet with the graph.

Looking into it, the graph comes from a blog post by a transgender real estate agent. I would not consider this a reliable or credible source whatsoever, especially when the post goes on to say this:

You heard it here first, folks, having a small penis means you're less male, and a larger clitoris means you're less female. That makes total sense. I was half expecting them to include this image:

Back to the post: I attempted to explain to him that being in the female range of a specific trait doesn't mean you're female, without much success.

Speaking with him felt like trying to capture a feral cat. It was like I kept having to appease him with treats to keep him from hissing and scampering off. I've never had this feeling when speaking to any other trans person on this webbed site, they usually either block me immediately or have a conversation and then block me when they realize I actually have valid arguments to make. It was definitely a new experience for me. I have screenshots if anyone cares enough to see the full thing.

He did end up realizing I wasn't as complacent as he thought, and blocked me after leaving another beautiful essay in my DMs. The post that pushed him over the edge? The one where I made fun of the breastfeeding fetishist nominal.naomi. Why? Because I implied that males are ugly slobs that can't take pictures. Lol.

It's funny that this interaction seemingly got him to reconsider his time on Tumblr, to the point that he did a complete 180.

You know what, I'll take it. Some of his posts unintentionally call for gender abolition and acknowledge gendered labour inequalities. Sure, he reinforces gendered stereotypes while doing so, but at least he's saying something.

If I can get a misogynistic lesbian fetishist to change his entire blog to regurgitate basic feminist talking points and think he's owning Le TERFs... That's probably the funniest thing to happen to me here.

To be clear, that doesn't make him any less violent towards women he disagrees with.

To conclude: This entire exchange has made me realize that I don't have that many serious posts on this blog compared to my previous blogs. I'll start working on some more serious posts. If you gyns have any suggestions for subjects I could discuss in more of a serious or analytical tone, feel free to shoot me an ask or a DM.

[viragodude]

Viragoism: A proposition by Caracal

As anti-transmasculinity picks up and non transmascs increase their lack of support/understanding of it and us, i believe it is best to propose an alternative: Viragoism.

What is Viragoism?

Viragoism is a more radical strand of men’s liberation feminism that emphasises on the liberation and self sufficiency of transmasculine people and transmasculine communities, taking inspiration from queer anarchism and marxist feminism. The term originates from the archaic “Virago”, which can me defined as the following: “a woman of masculine strength or spirit; a female warrior.” I use virago in the context of gender transgressions against the patriarchal notion of masculinity; in which many transmasculine people, butches, and masculine-aligned nonbinary people often possess. In this spirit, the virago MAN is the biggest threat to patriarchy.

Why Viragoism?

Viragoism exists as an alternative to transmasculine people who feel increasingly alienated within trans spaces and cannot gather solidarity with non transmascs. Solidarity with other transmasculine people, materially, is the only option we can have left. Viragoism differs in Men Rights Activism in the sense that MRAs are dominantly cis male-oriented, and such are more resistant to the transmasculine plight; either tokenising us or not being able to propose ways to fix our oppression, with them being patriarchal plants and whatnot. Viragoism is the third way of most “intersectional” transfeminism and Men Right Activism. This is not to say that Viragoism can’t be mixed with transfeminism; as it can theoretically be compatible with the tenets of transfeminism.

How does Patriarchy and Capitalism affect transmasculine people?

Patriarchy, and subsequently capitalism, shackle us to where we are. Patriarchy guards masculinity viciously from transmasculine people, and will go lengths to do so; whether it be medical gatekeeping, legislations in which affect our ability to transition socially/medically as well as our ability to recieve reproductive care, and more nefarious methods such as infantilisation, erasure, corrective rape, institutionalising, and even murder. Working class transmascs, especially that of black transmascs, are unable to recieve medical transition let alone DIY hormonal treatment due to their status in capitalist society and, unfortunately, the legal barring of testostrone; as it is considered a schedule I substance in the US. The recent repealing of abortion rights in the US greatly poses a risk to all transmasculine people, as our chances of sexual assault and pregnancy as result have skyrocketed. The frustrating thing is that we are erased from the topic by cis feminist and some transfeminist movement; egregiously viewed as mere “collateral damage” in many conversations. Patriarchy and its footsoldiers (e.i. TERFism and Gender Critical ideology) quite literally seeks to rape us into detransition until we submit to its vision of us to live in coerced femininity, or we ultimately commit suicide.

Anti-transmasculinity and its manifestations in our system and non-transmascs

Anti-transmasculinity, or transmisandry, or transandrophobia, is the specific oppression in which transmasculine people are put through in Patriarchal society. It has many manifestations, especially through how we are socialised with. The ways it manifests are:

Infantilisation. You’re likely familiar with it through TERFs/GCs and their “save the little girls” and “save our lesbians” movements. This implies that transmasculine people have to be protected from their own decisions, and that we cannot think for ourselves. Ironically, non-transmasculine trans people also do this through the incistence of not allowing us to theorise our own oppression; intentionally or not.

Fetishisation. Transmasculine people are fetishised in very specific ways, either being expected to be sexually submissive (gay transmascs are especially plagued with this sentiment by cis chasers), or are fetishised via our body parts by (often times) cis lesbians who cannot fathom the idea of us losing our breasts. Fetishisation and Infantilisation are often intertwined. Unfortunately, non-transmasc trans people are guilty of this as well; e.i. the concept of the “soft boi” branding that plagues many trans spaces.

Corrective Sexual Assault, and sexual assault in general. This manifests in the idea that transmasculine people need to be raped into detransition in order to be a “proper woman”. Sexual assault can also be used to humiliate us for our gender transgressions against the Patriarchy, and to further its alienation of us as “false men��.

Institutionalisation. Though mostly in the past, this is still a wound that is fresh with many transmasculine people today. Transmasculine people were often sent off to mental institutions due to the Patriarchy’s fear of our transgressions against its relentless gendering. Our identity was/is viewed as a mental illness, one that must be cured with conversion therapy and coercion into femininity. Many GC “mothers” today often punish their closeted sons with this when they react against their oppression.

Specific Medical Gatekeeping and Mistreatment. Transmasculine people are often gatekept and abused by our own medical system. This can manifest in intentional misgendering, the classic “you’ll regret it” chats, medical fatphobia for fat transmasculine people, and the many loopholes it takes to even recieve testostrone via many insurance companies. Transmasculine people are also barred from reproductive care, as many are forced to use their ASAB (assigned sex at birth) to even get proper care. Worst of all, transmascs are even denied this treatment if their gender marker has changed or if they even are deep into their transition.

Ostracisation from communities they previously were apart of. If you’re familiar with lesbian discourse, this may serve as a proper example. Many transmasculine lesbians (who might have been in sapphic spaces prior to transitioning and still identify as such) may end up being removed from such communities for even identifying as transmasc, and for daring to transition while identifying as a lesbian on the basis of the whole “well lesbians can’t be men” argument. Other communities may even ostracise us BECAUSE of our approximity to masculinity.

Anti-masculinity and comparison to cis oppressors. If we aren’t being infantilised, then we are abused for our relationship with masculinity. In some queer spaces, we might be seen in the same vein as our cis male oppressors, and this is especially prevalent in how non transmascs interact with us; often branding us with the deragatory “angry man” stereotype when we even remotely try to explain our experiences in the gender discussion and express frustration. We are viewed in the lense of “Shrodinger’s Man”, either being soft bois in need of protection or an oppressor that must be silenced. In a similar vein, we are often placed as guardians in service of other queer/trans people except ourselves, expected to lay our lives to protect all but us.

Murder. In extreme cases, our transgression is so great that it is an affront to our life. Transphobes could potentially kill us because we are transmasculine, and i cannot help but pinpoint a couple of wellknown cases; that being Brandon Teena and Malte C, two transmascs that have been killed on the basis of their gender. Malte C was killed putting himself between an angry homophobe/transphobe and a lesbian couple, his killer uttering “you will never be a man” before striking and killing him. This martyrdom, though for a good cause, is often echoed as the expectation of many transmasculine people, as stated before.

Non-transmascs are complacent in anti-transmasculinity whether they refuse to believe it or not. Education does nothing, and so naturally it is assumed to keep them at an arms distance. Many can be truely good allies, but most will likely not be on our side. It is for this reason that transmasculine people must rely solely on other transmasculine people, and build solidarity with each other. Unfortunately some transmascs will likely fall into the same traps as non transmascs do, and it is best to either educate them or not engage at all.

Anti-transmasculinity Affected and Anti-Transmasculinity Exempt

There are two categories a Virago can use to sescribe themselves and others; Anti-transmasculinity Affected (ATA), or Anti-Transmasculinity Exempt (ATE).

Anti-Transmasculinity Affected: Trans men, transmasculine nobinary people, intersex people, butches, multigendered people and some AMAB nonbinary people.

Anti-transmasculinity Exempt: Trans women, transfeminine nonbinary people, cis men, cis women, and some AFAB nonbinary people.

ATAs bear the brunt of anti-transmasculinity, while ATEs do not. Intersex people’s experiences often vary, as well as AMAB nonbinary people’s experiences. ATEs generally do not understand how anti-transmasculinity hurts us; often partaking in it themselves.

What is the end goal of the Virago Movement?

Total liberation. Liberation of all transmasculine people from Patriarchy, from capitalism and its hierarchies, assimilation, and from anti-transmasculinity. We can achieve this by resisting these things through transmasculine solidarity, love, and direct action. Support fellow transmascs, and to ATEs: help amplify our voices. Transmasc workers, form unions and aid fellow transmasc workers against capitalism and discrimination.

My ask box is open to those who have questions.

[locustheologicus]

The Danger of Gender Ideology

I normally do not go into this subject but I must confess that I do have an opinion. I am a progressive Catholic who believes in the social principles of our tradition. I have come to understand and appreciate the need for people to struggle with their indenty and orientation as they become ever more aware of who they are. This may primarily be an individual pursuit but it also done (and must be done) within the context of community and society. There seems to be a slippery slope however with the extent of pursuing gender identity to the point that the individual has no social and community context for who they are. Instead, the individual becomes a radical other and they find fulfillment in their own self-designed commercial pursuits or social goals that are outside of the community. This, I think, is very troubling. I believe the Church is correct in pointing out this troubling aspect.    

We have always lived in a world where we struggle to know our place in the universe, this is the grand pursuit of philosophy and theology. This is a process and as we delve ever deeper into our own communal truths we are able to climb higher into our own communal consciousness. But as many philosophers have said in the past. “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The type of gender identity struggle that completed displaces an individual’s context within the larger community is what I feel is dangerous. Not dangerous for society in general, but dangerous for the individual. People that have islated themselves to few fleeting relationship where that person “gets me” until that person no longer does or has moved on suffes from the the poverty of islolation. We are all wounded and as we struggle to heal we often find this within the context of a welcoming community that weaves us back into society. In this way, we continue to find fullfilment and the authentic pursuit of happiness as we discover our own calling within the family and community that we are or become a part of. The statement from the Holy Father says its this way:       

This anthropological truth is fundamental because it fully responds to the desire for human fulfillment and happiness that lives in our hearts. In today's cultural context we sometimes tend to forget or obscure this reality, with the risk of reducing the human being to his sole material needs or primary needs, as if he were an object without conscience and without will, simply dragged by life as part of a mechanical gear. And instead man and woman are created by God and are the image of the Creator; that is, they carry within them a desire for eternity and happiness that God himself has sown in their hearts and which they are called to realize through a specific vocation. For this reason there lives within us a healthy internal tension that we must never suffocate: we are called to happiness, to the fullness of life, to something great to which God has destined us. The life of each of us, without exception, is not an accident; our existence in the world is not a mere fruit of chance, but we are part of a plan of love and we are invited to come out of ourselves and realize it, for ourselves and for others.

I am reflecting on this as I consider the recent controvery regarding the homecoming funeral of the transgendered author Cecilia Gentili at St. Patrick’s Cathedral last week. This person has obviously gone through her struggles with human trafficking, addiction, and sexual abuse among other things. An article in the Brooklyn Tablet indentifies that Ms. Gentelli was “a self-professed atheist, had been ‘reexamining (a) relationship with religion for a long time,’ and had come ‘from a family of so many different faiths’ that prevented Gentili from feeling ‘attached to any of them.’” Unfotunately it seems that the transexual community intended to utilize her funeral in oder to make their own statement. 

I feel like the case of Ms. Genteili speaks to the concern that Pope Francis is raising. Here was a wounded person, in her own way she persevered with a community where she found some solace, the transexual community. But from how she is described it seems to indicate that she stubborn and strong headed as an individual but spiritually she seemed lost, wavering and in a sense incomplete. Her own community is so bent in championing her stubborn individuality that no consideration is made for understanding the mystical truths of a sacred liturgy. Perhaps this was a celebration of life, but the mystical union with God and the broader community remained absent.   

The struggle for one’s fullfilment and happiness is found when we delve into the heart of who we are, as sons and daughters of God and brothers and sisters to one another. This is the core principle of our social teaching. One that St. Augustine knew all to well.   

[thebreakfastgenie]

As you pointed out in your response there are many conservative people who are also queer, so in my opinion the identity of the person expressing the viewpoint is not in and of itself context, though it can be the starting point for context. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you meant is you know this person and what you are trying to communicate is that the OP is not a transphobe but — well, unfortunately, there are trans people who are. In the same way that there’s gay conservatives, etc.

I would also like to clarify that I used the term “feminist theory” rather than “feminism” to try to make the point that there are several radically different things that fall under the label of feminism. In hindsight, this was poor choice of words.

I do think I agree with your point that there should be more mainstream attention drawn to what I will loosely term the building blocks of feminism. Some of it is simple poor choice of language - for example, the example you gave about how cis women don’t experience gender based discrimination might have been a poorly worded attempt to say that cis women don’t experience transphobia/cissexism/transmisogyny, which would be correct. Other times there are gaps in knowledge that some people think are “too obvious” to teach about and other people think are a solved problem, a historical issue.

However part of the post still rubs me the wrong way a little bit and your explanation doesn’t quite cover it. It would be extraordinarily strange for example to say cis women need to learn feminism because they only think that they understand gender - you might say that they need to learn about feminism because they would benefit from it, or so they don’t perpetuate harm to other women, or so they would understand the history of what women have experienced so they don’t risk retreading past mistakes, or so they know what to be vigilant for to avoid harm, and learn skills for how to respond to oppression, etc, but it would be very strange to say that they only think they know what being a woman is unless they’ve learned about feminism. This seemed to be the implication of the post though; that trans people “think” they know about gender because they’re trans, but they need to learn more about feminism and gender theory.

OP's identity felt very relevant to me, because your first message spun a bunch of potential ways the post was transphobic based on assumptions. I think in this case the context that this was a trans person making an observation about her own community is significant.

I don't think it's at all strange to say women need to learn about feminism. Quite frankly, if we are talking about dismantling structures of oppression, then yes, we need to learn more about feminism and gender theory. OP did not say trans people only think they know what being trans is, or what being their specific gender is. There is a lot more to gender than the individual experience of being a gender. A personal identity or experience does not automatically confer an understanding of the systems at play.

[disastergay]

as a philosophy student, it irritates me how I have yet to see a TERF talking point that's grounded in reality and not just speculation or based in willful misunderstanding.

"if trans women aren't just men perpetuating misogynistic stereotypes about women, then why do they try so hard to conform to gender roles?? makeup and feminine clothes don't make you a woman"

maybe because it's safer to be a visibly gender-conforming woman? less than a century ago, there were laws in the U.S. that allowed the police to arrest women who wore "two or more masculine garments/accessories" (vice versa with men). those laws might be gone, but they left a nasty scar on our history.

"we should make it harder/impossible for everyone to transition because young girls are being brainwashed into irreversibly mutilating their bodies"

that... even if this scenario was realistic, that's not a viable solution at all? I agree that kids and teens who are questioning their gender shouldn't be rushed into transitioning, because I don't believe we should equate transness to transitioning. dysphoria is an extremely difficult cross to bear and should never be taken lightly, but anyone who says "the only way to EVER get rid of dysphoria for ALL trans people is through top/bottom surgery and HRT" is just wrong.

and those of y'all who are active proponents of abortion should know damn well that the only result restricting and/or banning gender affirming medical care will achieve is making the transition process more dangerous.

"testosterone can make people behave aggressively, and biological males on average have much more testosterone in their bodies than biological females. therefore, biological males are inherently more aggressive than biological females (and the latter group is not safe for them to be around)"

I love this argument because A) I can break it down into parts (basic premise #1, BP #2, and intermediate conclusion + major conclusion) and B) it overlaps cleanly with the topic of ableism.

so! aggression. it's a fairly fickle thing. depending on your personality and what specifically triggers your aggressive side, you may express aggression in many ways--physically, mentally, and/or emotionally towards other people, through an outlet you use to blow off steam, or maybe you turn all of that aggression inwards and use it to hurt yourself.

even if I was 100% sure that "biological males" are innately more aggressive than "biological females" (let's say due to testosterone for the sake of this context), I wouldn't agree with the main conclusion--that a "biological male" tendency to experience aggression means "biological females" are not safe around them.

why? because aggression does not necessarily beget violence of any kind.

to the vast majority of people, there's a slight difference between 'aggression' and 'aggressive behavior,' otherwise we wouldn't have coined terms (and still use those terms today!) to distinguish them from each other. (for example, if a radfem finds out a woman is trans, and that radfem suddenly feels the urge to punch said woman but doesn't act on it for whatever reason, that radfem is experiencing feelings of aggression BUT not actually exhibiting aggressive behavior.)

and now we've reached the question at the heart of this argument--if aggressive people learn to deal with their aggression in a healthy way, then can't they be safe to be around?

the answer is yes. the answer MUST be yes. because the minute society decides that the answer is no, any hope incarcerated prisoners and mentally ill/disabled people have of being treated like human beings gets squashed flat.

idk, I guess I'm just disappointed that trans exclusionary radical feminists base most of their arguments on pathos with little regard for ethics or logic.

and like. every single time I make a post like this TERFs just wanna call me names, tell me I'm delusional (as if that's new information), or nitpick my phrasing and then pretend they've completely dismantled all of my points. none of them are genuinely interested in learning about what it's like to be trans or WHY we think expanding beyond the western gender binary is more radical than forcing gender abolition on everyone.

TERFs think they already know everything there is to know about us, that there's nothing else left for them to learn from us, and that is their biggest mistake.

[olderthannetfic]

I wanted to ask you about radical feminism (TERF-ism & TIRF-ism). Radical feminism never seemed to be *necessarily* some of the really bad things that people on this blog say it is. For instance, everything roach-works says it is in an earlier post. There are at least some people I've read who are part of the movement of radical feminism (whether or not they would self-identify as that) and who really don't espouse any of the views in roach-works comments. (1/2) Thinking of the list of points

--

From nothorses - the people I’ve read (e.g. Iris Marion Young) *do* espouse many of these, but not so in a way that has to lead to these more extreme views that roach-works mentioned. One may not agree with them but they don’t seem so bad to me? Are they? Am I a terrible person? It disturbs me to hear something with the word 'feminism' in it denigrated so harshly, and it always seems to me like the views get mixed up with the worst half of the people who believe in them. (2/2)

(Appendix...) I feel there's a lot of truth in SOME of the views that nothorses correctly ascribes (i. m. o.) to radical feminists, in particular: "Women are all miserable with their bodies, cursed with the pressure to reproduce and have sex with men. ... miserable with their genders, forced as they are to ensure the overwhelming and constant suffering that is patriarchy." Is it just that the "all" makes the views too strong? Or is there, for critics, a more fundamental problem I'm missing?

I've seen some much nicer, saner people self-describe as radical feminists and object strenuously to how I see radfems... However, all of them still kept talking about porn in terms that only make sense if you're talking about the evils of the mainstream industry, and moreso the mainstream industry of the 1970s (which is when a lot of this rhetoric comes from). And yet this attitude gets over-applied to porn in general, regardless of medium, working conditions, or level of economic necessity involved in its creation.

The attitudes I think are pretty much universal in this ideology, and universally shitty, come out when they're confronted with fsub content by and for women.

Yeah, yeah, "mommy porn". I'm not saying Fifty Shades of Grey is well written or not kind of embarrassing, but when people start bleating about how confused womenfolk will get bad ideas from it, you should be suspicious, whether they're radfems or fundies.

"The hot billionaire falls in love with me for no reason and does all the work to make sex hot while I lie there like a dead fish" is a common fantasy. It really doesn't say anything about the woman in question, nor does it make the patriarchy stronger.

The big one to look for from nothorses list is #5:

Sex, in particular, is more often exploitative than not. Only some kinds of sex are not exploitative. Many kinds of sex that we think are consensual, or that people say are consensual, are either rape or proto-rape.

This is saying "BDSM is rape", which is something that most radfems do think once you scratch the surface. Rape roleplay is also rape and furthering the patriarchy.

Even if they make some small allowance for informed adults doing BDSM in some strict environment with specific rules, show them 50SoG and women's right to choose goes out the window. Sure, the relationship in the book looks pretty unhealthy, at least at the beginning, but the thing being criticized is readers' right to choose.

Even the radfems who support butchness and don't think butch women are gender traitors will usually be assholes over trashy wank material like 50SoG.

And once you open the door to "your libido is political", you've started down a very dark road that leads to a bunch of naturally kinky tumblr teens sitting in their bedrooms, staring at their computer screens, and wondering if they're a future rapist because they like a/b/o or sex pollen or something.

--

I get where you're coming from. Maybe you're in a context where most women are pretty miserable. But I'm not. I was raised by a mother who thought diets were stupid and telling your daughter what you think of her body is active child abuse.

Being a victim of abuse, including "you're too fat" type abuse, is neither inherent nor unique to women. Sure, women tend to be under the microscope, but so are lots of people.

As an upper middle class anglo white woman in the US and moreover as a woman who looks fairly conventionally femme even with my very hairy legs (much to my annoyance), I honestly don't experience that much policing. I already, through no fault and certainly no merit of my own, conform reasonably well to the "neutral" standard of white womanhood. My male equivalent would be the most unmarked in the US, but I'm only a little marked.

What this gender-obsessed analysis misses is that it's not about womanhood: it's about failing to be the "neutral" default. Poor people fail. Black people fail. Asian people fail. Disabled people fail. At least in the US. In Japan, third generation Korean-Japanese fail. Burakumin fail despite being ethnically Japanese due to having been a separate caste for centuries.

"Intersectionality" on social media tends to get used as miserypoker: the speaker with the most listed oppressions wins the argument and you should signal boost them or you're a bad person.

In actuality, what intersectionality means is recognizing that gender and sex may sometimes just not be very important in a given person's life if they experience enough privilege or if, conversely, they have such a profound lack of privilege elsewhere that this other identity overshadows gender in terms of their lived experience.

Radfem ideology says I must prioritize Woman out of my many identities. But, in reality, I feel more kinship with bisexual men than with lesbian women. I feel more kinship with kinky straight people than with bisexuals who want AO3 and pride parades to be nothing but g-rated hand holding.

--

I get that it's upsetting for people to be railing against something called "feminism", but that's like saying that disliking the Jews for Jesus makes you antisemitic. The whole point is that a lot of people feel that radical feminism is pretty anti-woman in many of its core values.

I don't think you're a bad person. I do think that some of the underpinnings of radfem ideology lead directly to sensitive people who are concerned about such things wondering if they are.

[crusty]

literally can’t understand what you’re trying to say with the exclusionist post can you reword it

YEAH, I appreciate u asking, here's the gist:

The terms exclusionist and inclusionist are another example of Tumblr/Twitter trying to put people into categories of GOOD and bad, similar to the usage of anti/proshipper.

It's impossible to put people into binary categories, the usage of "Good" vs. "Bad" never works in any given context. This is also why having a gender binary doesn't work. Humans are very complex!

Now, that being said, this statement should not inherently tell people that I am an 'exclusionist'. That leap of logic does not make sense. Nowhere are the words "Asexuals are not LBGT" (which, to my understanding, is the main signifier of an 'exclusionist) anywhere present on my page or my posts.

That's all I said!

(If you want something deeper than my surface-level thoughts, feel free to click the read-more. I appreciate you asking for clarification.)

What do I believe then, if the terms "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" are overused and continuously abused in Tumblr/Twitter discourse spheres?

It's a nuanced situation. That means both sides are fucking stupid. The notion that inclusionists are DA GOOD GUYS and exclusionists are DA BAD GUYS makes the whole discourse pointless and completely antithetical to what the ace community should be focusing on.

Asexuals are people just like the rest of us. The need to consistently belittle them and claim that they do not exist has been tiring ever since the term first became popular/known in leftist circles. Many people do not feel sexual attraction, and there should absolutely be a conversation to teach others that sex is not the end all be all for a lot of people. The topic of "Sex or No Sex" shouldn't be something people actively care about.

//CW BELOW: r slur, CSA mention, heavy subject matter//

Here is a bit of personal information I feel comfortable sharing now.

I distinctly remember feeling very ostracized as a teen. (FOR MANY REASONS, but for this point, I'm specifically on the subject of sex/sexuality.) Everyone around me was falling prey to the horror that is heterosexuality and society's expectations of sex and the exploitation of young girls.

I actively did not feel sexual attraction at an age many of my peers did. I remember arguing back and forth with my dad in 2014 that there was a small community of people online that didn't feel sexual attraction, both boys and girls, and he called me r*tarded, saying that every man wants to have sex, and every girl wants sex with men. I was mortified by what he said to me. It stuck with me long after that conversation. At this time, I already knew my dad was a sexual predator who had no problem ruining my life, so it makes sense why at first the asexual community resonated with me.

//CW end//

From the time I was 15 to about 20, I considered myself asexual to a specific degree. I was a sex-repulsed ace for many years. I remember IDing as demi as a teen, back when I was stuck in MOGAI hell, and later in my life, I focused more on the bigger LGBT labels, searching for the perfect fit.

Eventually, I grew up and realized it was no one's fucking business how I personally felt about sex and what my relationship to it was. Ace is a modifier label to me. When I realized I was a lesbian who had been ashamed of my attraction to women and nonbinary people I was literally euphoric. That was the most important thing to me. Being able to have lesbian sex was literally more healing than anything else in the fuckin world.

Sex is a really fucking personal thing, and when I hit 21 years old I stopped giving a shit about acecourse. I'm on my own now and I got bills to pay and shit to do.

Even though I personally don't think being ace makes me intrinsically LGBT, I'm smart enough to understand that most who ID as ace are also queer in some way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

----

Now the biggest reason why I stopped associating with the worst fucking discourse-ridden community on Tumblr.

There are a group of asexuals that have been some of the most tone-deaf, obnoxious, bigoted pieces of shit I've ever seen on the internet. The push amongst this very specific portion of aces on the internet to demonize sex completely, lump the LGBT community (a community that is largely filled with people who are, you guessed it, not asexual) with cishets solely on the basis that they are 'Sex Havers' (which is... extremely weird and invasive in general), consistently harassing lesbians and leaving them out of any sort of pride posts/merch, and misusing terms like TERF (a term that should ONLY be used when talking about transmisogynistic radical feminists.... an actual fascist hate group that has caused the real deaths of real women), is not something other aces should be actively supporting, and it should not be up to your fellow LGBTs to teach you shit you should already know. ESPECIALLY if you're fucking white and your main target of harassment is against black and brown people. You got all that time to bitch about shit and somehow no time to reblog a person of colors donation post. Okay.

I'm way past the point of giving a fuck, so please, if you disagree with any of my points, gladly grow up and leave my page. I shouldn't have to hide my thoughts to please a small minority of idiots on the internet. I'm too fucking old for this and so are y'all.

[cuntess-carmilla]

i’m not a crypto, i just assumed sex based oppression was a term for misogynistic experiences unique to AFAB people, like a distinction within the broader context of misogyny. definitely dropping it from my vocabulary now. as for why i brought it up - i wanted to make a point as to why it’s ridiculous for people to avoid discussing misogyny or criticizing men because of the fear of biological essentialism/looking like a terf, because like i said in that anon it’s all misogyny and all serves the same purpose: oppression. i worded it very poorly and that’s on me.

i do have one question about biological essentialism though: is a rationalization for misogyny the same thing as an origin/creator of misogyny? i always thought biological essentialism was one of the many blueprints for misogyny because it’s such an old concept and it provided a convenient explanation as to why it “needed” to exist. is it considered a rationalization specifically in the contexts of how terfs wield it?

There's not much misogynistic violence that's entirely unique to AFAB people tbh. A lot of what people think of as such is just invisibilized when it comes to trans women and other transfems. Even if there were forms of misogynistic violence that magically didn't affect perisex transfems at all somehow, intersex people exist and their experiences can be vastly different from what one would assume based on their assigned gender. Assigned gender doesn't make up fully coherent categories because it's arbitrary and fabricated.

I do agree that it's ridiculous that people try so hard to defang themselves when discussing the patriarchy and its violence. It's insane and like it's been said already, it only gives TERFs footing to take in people who do want to address that violence but aren't well equipped yet to navigate those discussions without being indoctrinated by them. It's why you have soooo many young TERFs convinced that there's only liberal or radical feminism so if you're dissatisfied with liberal choice feminism your only option is radical feminism, despite how there's an infinte list of feminist branches.

A rationalization for oppression can be built backwards. Nearly every form of oppression (if not all of them) is rationalized backwards. A group rises to power or seeks to rise to power and disseminates ideology that justifies this. Patriarchal societies disseminate reasoning as to why women are inferior in order to keep them subjugated.

Problem is that after a few generations of this propaganda being repeated like it's certain truth, people start being given those narratives from birth and then it's hard to tell which came first (the narrative vs the fact of oppression).

The earliest human societies weren't (all?) patriarchal units, that's how historians for ages have assumed things were because that was their cultural bias ("men went out to hunt while women stayed to care for the children and sometimes gathered fruit uwu"), kinda similar to how people who support capitalism assume that since the beginings of humanity people have been individualists who hoard to their own benefit, when in reality most societies were complex webs of interdependence that not only used but needed a more collectivist mindset and structure in order to survive. Similar to how ableists try to say that ancient societies would just leave their ill and disabled to die (in order to insist that it's "human nature" to get rid of us) despite there being archeological proof that many of those societies actually took care of their ill and disabled to the best of their ability and that they were valued members of their respective societies.

Bio-essentialism is a tool of the patriarchy (as well as white supremacy and ableism), which is why its narrative changes depending on what's needed for a patriarchal order to substain itself through time and in different places.

[canary3d-obsessed]

Restless Rewatch: The Untamed Episode 06 (first part)

(Masterpost)(Episode 05)

Warning: This contains spoilers for All 50 Episodes

Bad Boys Bad Boys What You Gonna Do

Nie Huasang’s brought his nuts, and someone’s brought wine, so the boys are drinking in Wei Wuxian’s guest house. Finally he gets to drink some of the Emperor’s Smile wine that he’s been doing all those product placements for.

Boys, get a bowl or something for your shells, were you raised in a barn?

Wei Wuxian hits on waxes poetic about the wine, and Jiang Cheng tells him to shut up. 

Wang Zhuocheng’s raw-fish-eating face may have failed him, but his drunk faces do not disappoint.

Wei Wuxian teases Jiang Cheng about his list of standards for a chick: She should have natural beauty, be virtuous and caring, from a good family, not too talkative, with a gentle voice, and not too capable. Also she should not spend too much money. Drunken running ensues.

Cue Maple Leaf Rag by Scott Joplin

(more behind the cut)

Much of the fandom has decided this list is a good fit for Nie Huaisang himself, and it sorta is. But he is both talkative and unvirtuous, what with all the current sneakiness, and all the eventual murders. 

This also definitely doesn't fit Wen Qing because she's capable as hell.  

This list is, however, a 100% a match for Jiang Yanli. Not in a weird, Jin Guangyao way--a lot of men want to marry a woman like their sister.  In a gender-divided and generation-divided society, a man’s sister might be the only woman he’s ever known well. Jiang Cheng adores Yanli and she’s his ideal model of a woman, as opposed to his mother, who...isnt.  

All these robes and talismans over the door do nothing to stop Lan Wangji from strolling in.  

Okay so - Lan Wangji is the senior disciple of the Lan Clan, yea? There is no way that patrolling the guest area is in any way his job. He is just walking around here at night specifically to see what Wei Wuxian is doing.

I already did a gifpost of the boys and their totally nonsexual horseplay, over here. I’ll just add, for sad factor, that Jiang Cheng is play-choking Wei Wuxian when they’re all on the bed, and later in the running-and-crying episode he is gonna for-real choke him. Foreshadowing! or maybe just coincidence!

One fun thread running through the young-cultivators episodes is that Nie Huaisang is legit terrified of Lan Wangji while also having a major aesthetic crush on him. Look at how flustered he is here, trying to act sober while also checking him out. 

Lan Wangji is shocked and visibly upset - what are you guys doing? This is not his busting face, this is, for a moment, his vulnerable and disillusioned face. He is super not used to what normal people are like. 

Wei Wuxian doesn't lie or otherwise try to get off the hook, which has got to have Jiang Cheng and Nie Huaisang grinding their teeth in frustration. He invites Lan Wangji to join them for a drink. LWJ cites a the “no drinking on campus” rule and WWX tries to convince him to chill. 

Then we have this lovely coordinated faint by the boys, to get out of going to get punished. Nie Huaisang has been practicing fainting in front of a mirror just in case he ever needs a skill like that in the future. 

Wei Wuxian keeps trying to turn this into a date. Eventually Lan Wangji is so upset he admits he can’t take all three of them by himself. 

Then the boys run away fake-barfing and Wei Wuxian hits Lan Wangji with a talisman. 

Steal His Agency That’s What You’re Gonna Do

What Wei Wuxian does to Lan Wanji here is definitely wrong. But it's not entirely a disaster.  It allows some crucial information to be shared between them, and it results in Wei Wuxian getting the utter shit beat out of him and never doing this again. I mean, he continues to mind-control his enemies and their eventual corpses, but he doesn't intentionally violate a friend or ally's autonomy in the future. Uhh not counting that whole golden core surgery-without-consent situation. And probably some other situations I’ve forgotten. He improves slightly, okay? 

It’s important to note, incidentally, that the Lan rules about drinking and other “vices” should not be viewed through a Christian lens. The Lans are neither puritans nor ascetics (look at their clothes, furniture, and jewelry, for starters). Being drunk is forbidden probably because it’s a loss of self-control. 

Speaking of self-control, mad props to Wang Yibo for being able to have zero physical reaction to fingers snapping in his face.

Drunk Lan Wangji

Under duress, Lan Wangji knocks back a cup of wine and promptly passes most of the way out. 

Wei Wuxian puts Lan Wangji into bed not unkindly, but pretty much like a sack of potatoes. Compare this to how tenderly he handles Lan Wangji the next time he’s drunk. 

WWX tells LWJ to call him Wei Gege, and giggles. Is this a term of endearment in this context? So far the various boys are calling each other -xiong, not -ge or gege.  In Western media, men calling each other “bro” is basically saying “no homo,” but brotherhood and sisterhood in C-Drama is often a way of indicating stronger love than friendship, without saying whether it's sexual or not. 

They finally start to have a conversation, and when Lan Wangji explains that no-one can touch his headband except, etc etc, Wei Wuxian stops trying to touch it. So at least he's not a handsy bastard in addition to all his other faults. 

Wei Wuxian tells Lan Wangji that his clan is boring and women won't want to marry him. Lan Wangji says that's fine. On one level this is the show acknowledging that he's gay, but I think he's responding in a gender-neutral way; he doesn't want to marry anyone. Marriage, from his perspective, is the literal worst. 

We don't know how he felt about his father, but he definitely loved his mother deeply, and she had a profoundly unhappy marriage, in which her husband did not provide companionship and her children were taken from her.

A note about all that: The dynamics of heterosexual marriages in The Untamed are not based on contemporary companionate marriage. Sex and reproduction is a wife's job in this world, and giving a gentry woman the option to choose her husband is radical. Wei Wuxian is the only one who dares say that Jiang Yanli should have a choice when Jin Guangshan casually tries to give her to his son in front of everyone.  

OP made this today but will totally reuse it when episode 23 rolls around

So Lan Wangji’s parents' marriage was extremely problematic but not necessarily for the reasons it would be in contemporary terms. Having signed on to marry Lan Dad, Mom would have expected to live together and get laid regularly (important for health, in some traditional views, regardless of love/no love) and to have the company of her children. Instead, she was isolated. Lan Dad wanted to have it both ways and so even though he loved her and apparently hooked up with her sometimes, he didn't do his duty by her. She didn't love him but she did her duty. 

Wei Wuxian continues to not get it, calling Lan Wangji dull and babbling about Lan Wangji’s parents until he realizes that LWJ is an orphan like him. 

A nice shift happens here. Once the penny drops, Wei Wuxian doesn't ask a single additional question - he just sees - by reading Lan Wangji’s face - what the deal is, and shares his own story to show he understands. 

This is the first time Wei Wuxian mentions being chased by dogs, which is kind of a big deal, because why was he left all alone when his parents died? 

Why didn't anyone take him in before Jiang Fengmian found him? How isolated are independent cultivators in this world? 

Tea Time

Lan Qiren and Lan Xichen are having tea, and the Lan Clan is so uptight they don't touch each other's teacups. I don't know what this thing is called so I'm going to call it a tea speculum. 

Lan Qiren is back from the cultivation conference and says the red crack plague is happening over in Qinghe where the Nie clan lives.  Lan Xichen fills him in on the water demon, specifically saying Wei Wuxian figured out the connection to the red crack dudes, and explaining who WWX is, as if Lan QIren hadn't already thrown stuff at him and threatened to eventually kill him. 

Fun fact that I just noticed this week so didn't make it into earlier posts: In Episode 46, when Lan Wangji and Wei Wuxian are in the Jiang ancestral hall, WWX says he was often punished to kneel there, and LWJ said that they heard about this in Gusu.  

So when WWX came to Gusu he already had a reputation as a troublemaker, and the Lan brothers were aware of it.   

Busted and Beaten

A Lan snitch comes in to say that Wei Wuxian has successfully corrupted Lan Wangji, which really shouldn’t cause as much surprise as it does.

“Wei Wuxian got drunk”

“Lan Wangji got drunk”

Lan Xichen takes a moment to consider carefully whether Wei Wuxian is a good friend for his little brother and whether perhaps he was too hasty in throwing them together. Ha ha ha no he doesn’t. 

On the punishment porch, Lan Xichen tries to lecture Lan Wangji in a calm way, but Lan Qiren wants to beat him and Lan Wangji wants to get beat. Wei Wuxian can’t understand why Lan Wangji doesn’t let him take the blame for the drinking. 

Lan Qiren goes way the fuck overboard with this punishment because he's angry--losing control and losing his sense of proportion--and Lan Xichen is shocked. The drone camera watching from above is also shocked.  

Lan Qiren has a few (very few) redeeming qualities, but his extreme rigidity and chronic resentment of anyone he perceives as bad are serious problems. His nephews are both struggling with complex moral quandaries as they get older, and he is absolutely no help to them in resolving their conflicts.

This is definitely...a style of parenting & teaching, but you can see how poorly it works, with Lan Wangji straight up saying “fuck it” after many years of conformity.  Lan Xichen is devoted to the middle path and tries to be obedient. But he is actually not walking anywhere near the middle path, as he gets pulled into colluding with a murderer at the same time as getting dragged onto his brother’s carnival ride. These men need parenting that isn’t so, uh, fucking stupid. (Yes, grown adults still need good parenting; watch Go Ahead if you doubt me) 

Wei Wuxian initially yells and falls down when he gets hit, but then he sees Lan Wangji is taking the beating without any reaction and he tries to do the same. 

Aftermath

Jiang Yanli gently lectures the boys, blaming Jiang Cheng for Wei Wuxian's drinking.  Jesus Christ, he's the younger sibling, could you just NOT, Yanli?  

Both boys ask Yanli not to tell their parents. The boys bicker about who's at fault and then Wei Wuxian shifts to baby voice and starts whining to Yanli about the pain. 

Yanli tells him to suck it up, and says after school she'll -- ok and I know this will be a surprise for everyone -- make soup for them. The boys immediately get back on the same team, which is team Please Put Meat In the Soup.

There's a nice character building moment for Wei Wuxian here. When he sees Lan Xichen he initially turns away to avoid running into him, but then he adults-up and goes to face him and greet him, giving him a half of a bow because of the pain, the pain. Rather than complaining about his punishment he meekly asks if he's broken another rule. 

Lan Xichen tells him that he did wrong but that Lan Qiren’s punishment was too harsh, and then in what is one of my favorite Lan Xichen moments, invites Wei Wuxian to use the cold spring to heal, but doesn't invite Jiang Cheng to go with him even though Jiang Cheng also was beaten. Lan Xichen, Matchmaker Auntie Extraordinaire. 

Then he answers Wei Wuxian’s question about his mom by saying she was just like Wei Wuxian and drove Lan Qiran up the wall. Jiang Cheng's reaction to that is really sweet. He does enjoy Wei Wuxian at the same time as being constantly irritated by him. 

Lan Xichen does his patented “breaking off in the middle of saying something and leaving out a chunk of the story” maneuver, although this time he doesn't include a flute solo. 

OP is mildly obsessed with Xuan Lu’s shoulders in this outfit. Also Yanli has an interesting sword, that's got some wood carving similar to Subian, but without the organic look, which OP only noticed because of screen capping Xuan Lu’s shoulders.  

Club Ruohan

Wen Qing continues to be pretty and slightly evil at this stage, sending magic fire notes to her boss using this talisman that is definitely floating in the air and not just hanging from a string. 

Wen Ruohan is in the mosh pit with his zombie groupies while he reads Wen Qing’s extremely vague status update and says "it all makes sense." 

Reach out and touch faith

Soundtrack

Maple Leaf Rag by Scott Joplin Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode

Writing Prompt

How did Wei Wuxian’s parents die?

Admin Notes

I’m going to start spacing out my “first part” and “second part” posts by a few days.  I’ll update this post to link up the second part once I post it, and my masterpost is always up to date. 

Also: if you want more of my original content but don’t want to follow my whole blog (not following is fine!), I keep a pinboard of fun stuff at the top of my blog. I try to post original content at least once a week.

Continued in the second part later this week!

[colorisbyshe]

Don’t publish if you don’t want, it’s fine and ilu and hate the clowns that show up in your askbox with anything other than Sasuke love, but ace rethoric, ideology, discourse, whatever you want to call it vibes P E R F E C T L Y with the cissexist, heterosexual, white supremacist patriarchy. it’s the reason why it only took aces a decade to form a semi-coherent movement. the system isn’t afraid. it embraces this shit for a reason. aces ain’t radical or tearing down the system. they uphold it.

I’m gonna close my ask box for a bit after this because... I’m gonna have to defend some shit rn and I’m not in the mood to waste my time like this.

There is something to be said about how a lot of ace rhetoric reaffirms harmful things like rape culture and even just reinvents conversion therapy tactics (and I have said it all, trust me). There is something to be said about how easily asexuality has been absorbed into mainstream culture as opposed to trans, gay, and bi identities, sure. I’ve spoken about that too.

But does it vibe perfectly with all those things you listed? No. If done correctly, asexuality and the ace community could work in tandem with feminism and the LGBT movement (as in allied with, not a part of) to dismantle rape culture. Because people, of any gender, DO face discrimination for not wanting sex. We just must also recognize the same culture also punishes people for wanting sex, too. It’s a catch 22 except for the smallest group of human beings, where your mileage may vary depending on how many privileged identities can stack up and shield you from the catch of it all.

Asexuality and rhetoric around it COULD be extremely helpful in enhancing discussions around sexual expectations and happiness without sex. About boundaries in relationships and how sexual mismatch can be a dealbreaker and that’s okay. IT could be a helpful tool on dating apps so people know “Don’t date me if you wanna smash.” We could have LGBT ace/aro spaces for people who are LGBT but maybe want spaces to talk and organized based on their specific needs, whatever they may be.

Asexuality and aromantism don’t inherently mesh with white supremacist patriarchy or heteronormativity or whatever. They certainly CAN but they don’t inherently.

A lot of the work I would PREFER the ace/aro communities do is already being done in feminist circles and LGBT spaces, I’ll admit to that. But if aces and aros got their fucking shit together, dropped even just half of the appalling shit they say, and joined up... it’d be nice and helpful.

I “got into” ace discourse years ago (and have been trying to escape ever since) not just out of protectiveness for LGBT identities, which a lot of ace rhetoric does harm and attack, but also out of a frustration with a community poised to do SO MUCH fucking good and instead focuses on doing less, every single time.

I want there to be dialogues abotu life without sex and romance and what happiness looks there. I want talks about marriage benefits and assets for people without romantic partners. Or more talk about how to help elderly single people who don’t have kids or partners as windfall for when they can’t take care of themselves. I want talks about how hard it can be to survive on single incomes or discrimination against single mothers or people who want to adopt on their own without a partner.

I want all that so fucking badly and instead I got 5+ years of “My cock is flaccid and I’m queer for it.”

So I won’t take a smear campaign of “Actually, society loves aces/aros” because that’s not true. In some contexts, it might be a bit true. Society would love for some marginalized people to have no sexual desire or romantic impulses. And I’ve spoken on that.

But in a lot of cases... it’s a lot more complicated than that and there are a lot of no win scenarios for people where to have or to not have sex/romance are punished in different ways but punished all the same.

Or maybe society as a whole doesn’t care and doesn’t punish it but also doesn’t consider perpetually single people in terms of designing social services.

There’s conversations I want to have and want the ace/aro communities to be have and they’re being sidelined for ace discourse, inventing a new term for “experiences sexual attraction but is ace for it,” or crying about how if perry the platypus is or isn’t good asexual representation.

Let’s talk on that instead of saying “heteronormativity loves women who never want to have sex or date.” Because... no.

[dweemeister]

NOTE: This is the first (and perhaps only) film released theatrically during the COVID-19 pandemic that I am reviewing – I saw Wolfwalkers at the Vineland Drive-in at the City of Industry, California. Because moviegoing carries risks at this time, please remember to follow health and safety guidelines as outlined by your local, regional, and national health officials.

Wolfwalkers (2020)

In interviews prior to and after Wolfwalkers’ release, co-director Tomm Moore has described the film as the last panel of Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych. That triptych (an informal trilogy) began with The Secret of Kells (2009) and continued with its centerpiece, Song of the Sea (2014). The global environment for animated cinema has transformed since Kells, and now – unexpectedly – Cartoon Saloon finds itself a hub for not just hand-drawn animation, but animation that rejects the crass commercialism emerging from mainstream animation studios (mostly from the United States). With the triptych completed (as well as 2017’s The Breadwinner), one can trace Cartoon Saloon’s evolution from their beginning to its present artistic maturation. While the film asserts its own uniqueness in the Cartoon Saloon filmography, there are connecting strands – aesthetic, spiritual, thematic – of the studio’s previous features apparent throughout. Upon a week’s reflection, I think Wolfwalkers is the studio’s second-best film, just behind Song of the Sea. Even at second-best, this level of artistry has rarely been seen in this young century.

It is 1650 in Kilkenny. Robyn Goodfellowe (Honor Kneafsey) is an apprentice hunter and only daughter of Bill (Sean Bean). Robyn and her father are expatriates from England, and some of their Irish neighbors will not let them forget that. Oliver Cromwell (Simon McBurney) – referred to as “The Lord Protector” throughout the film – has invaded Ireland and looks to secure his conquest over the Irish people (Cromwell is a despised figure in Ireland and lionized by some in England to this day). On an ill-advised trip outside the walls of Kilkenny, Robyn encounters and eventually befriends Mebh Óg MacTíre (Eva Whittaker in her first film role; pronounced “MABE”), a Wolfwalker. As a Wolfwalker, the animalistic Mebh can leave her physical body and take the shape of a wolf while slumbering. Mebh’s mother – who is also a Wolfwalker – has been missing for sometime while Cromwell has ordered the slaughter of all of Ireland’s wolves. Things are complicated when Bill is tasked by the Lord Protector to destroy the wolves living in the woods surrounding Kilkenny.

From the opening moments, lead background artist Ludovic Gavillet (2016’s The Secret Life of Pets, 2018’s The Grinch) sets the contrast between the scenes within and outside Kilkenny’s walls. Kilkenny is suffocatingly geometric, with squares and rectangles dominating the background and foreground. Backbreaking work defines life in Kilkenny, all devoted to the residents’ English conquerors, God, and the Lord Protector. Rarely does the average city resident venture outside the looming outer medieval walls (there are two sets of walls in the city). The structure of Kilkenny is inconceivably box-shaped when seen from a distance. It appears like a linocut. In that distance are the countryside and the forests. As one ventures further from Cromwell’s castle, expressionist swirls define the foliage that seems to enclose the living figures treading through. Green, brown, and black figures twist impossibly in this lush environment. Seemingly half-drawn or faded figures suggest a depthless, dense forest – similar in function to, but nevertheless distinct from, Tyrus Wong’s background art for Bambi (1942). In both Kilkenny and the forest scenes, selective uses of of CGI animation capture the dynamism of certain action scenes – two running scenes in particular employ these techniques (once in joy, the other in terror).

So often in modern CGI-animated films, the animators seem to grasp for heightened realism and minutiae. In such movies, too many details are packed into frames that can only be appreciated if prodigiously rewatched or paused mid-movie. It might feel like completing a visual checklist. In Wolfwalkers, the half-finished details amid breathtaking backgrounds, angular (or round) humans, and simultaneously threatening and delightful wolves almost seem to announce that, yes, humans drew this – and they did so with such artistic flare. In keeping with the references to triptychs in this review, the film itself sometimes divides the frame into thirds (a top, middle, and bottom or a left, center, and right) or halves in moments of dramatic weight. The thirds or halves are separated by dividing lines and are used for various purposes depending on the moment: to save the filmmakers from making two extra cuts, juxtapose differing if not contradicting perspectives, and intensify the emotions portrayed. Less utilized in this film but even more radical than the aforementioned techniques is the film’s use of shifting aspect ratios. Wolfwalkers is principally in 1.85:1 (the common American widescreen cinematic standard, which is slightly wider than the 16:9 widescreen TV standard), but there are notable moments which temporarily dispense of these standards. Like the division of the screen into thirds or halves, the shifts in screen aspect ratio help the audience focus and understand what is occurring on-screen. The most memorable screen aspect ratio shift appears before an eruption of violence.

The Secret of Kells, too, was set in a city designed in a perfect, orderly shape. That film, like Wolfwalkers, evokes Christianity for narrative purposes. But where Kells celebrated God and found religion as a source of comfort, Wolfwalkers’ depiction of Christianity – specifically, Cromwell’s Anglican zealotry – is without redeeming elements. Under his breath, the Lord Protector prays to God that he will execute any providential commands by any means necessary. In public, he announces his actions as essential to rid Ireland of the lupine paganism that inhabits the wild. Without saying as much, Cromwell’s orders are nevertheless Anglican England imposing its will on Irish Catholics. Irish cinema, until the late 1990s and early 2000s, was usually deferential in its depictions of the clergy and religious practitioners (almost always Catholic). Though it is not unheard of for an Irish film to be critical in portrayals of religious belief, it remains uncommon. And though Cromwell is Anglican and not Catholic (and despite the fact he remains vilified in Ireland), Wolfwalkers’ cynical depiction in how he wields his religiosity as a cudgel is an extraordinary development in Irish cinema.

Tied to the film’s depiction of religiosity are its undercurrents of English colonialism and environmentalism. The latter will be obvious to viewers, but the former might cause confusion during a first viewing because it seems to be, at once, on the periphery and yet central to Wolfwalkers. Cromwell being referred to as “the Lord Protector” for the film’s entirety is indicative of screenwriter Will Collins’ (Song of the Sea) decision not to provide much historical context within the film. English colonial oppression usually occurs off-screen or is implied. This seems inconsistent with Cartoon Saloon’s work on The Breadwinner. That film identifies and openly describes Taliban injustices.

So what gives? As much as those who admire animated film disdain perceptions that it is solely for children (like myself), animated film is oftentimes a gateway for children to be exposed, eventually, to other corners of cinema. Can children understand Anglican-Catholic tensions in Cromwellian Ireland? Perhaps (especially British and Irish children), if presented with enough care. But the answer probably lies with the fact that the thematic goals of Wolfwalkers are more aligned with Kells and Song of the Sea than The Breadwinner. Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych is concerned with how the Irish are inextricably, spiritually, bonded to the environment. There is a balance between humanity and nature – a mystical connection that, when disrupted, brings harm to all. The Breadwinner, though very much a part of Cartoon Saloon’s filmography, is grounded in recent history and, because of recent developments in the Taliban’s favor concerning the Afghan peace process, present-day concerns. In the film, fantastical stories are used to bring Parvana’s family together as the Taliban tighten their grip before the American invasion. This has little bearing on the folklore-centric storytelling of Wolfwalkers, but Collins, Moore, and Stewart’s editorial decision to downplay the film’s historical basis tempers any messaging they wished to convey.

Wolfwalkers meets The Breadwinner in its depiction of a young girl growing up in a male-dominated society. This film’s lead was supposed to be a young boy. But the story, to Collins, Moore, and Stewart, just did not click with the original male protagonist. As such, the trio made the decision early in the film’s production to switch the protagonist’s gender. Robyn, an English transplant to Ireland, is allowed remarkable freedom to do whatever she wants with her time in the opening stages of the film. This arrangement cannot persist as her father falls from the Lord Protector’s good graces. She is relegated to washing dishes from daybreak to dusk in the scullery – a task that she, in her heart, rejects for its gendered connotations. Robyn wears a Puritan’s frock while at the scullery, a uniform she has no desire for. While outdoors beyond the Kilkenny walls, she wears what her father wears – pants! – while out hunting wolves. Other than her father, few in the city care for Robyn’s intelligence and instincts. Most everybody ignores her protestations and truth-telling about the things she has seen in the forest. By film’s end, she is vindicated, in spite of Cromwell’s (and, to a lesser extent, her father’s) bluster and bravado.

This film also contains potentially queer subtext between Robyn and Mebh. Writers more skilled than I will provide better analysis of that subtext. Nothing explicit is shown, as the two are still children. Yet the nature of their friendship, the themes contained in Wolfwalkers, and some unspoken moments between Robyn and Mebh seem to relate a possible queerness. The film also does nothing to present either girl as heterosexual. Queer or not, Wolfwalkers shows the viewer a blossoming friendship between two girls – not without its tribulations, but rooted in their common earnestness.

Unlike previous films in Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych, there are no notable original songs in Wolfwalkers. French composer Bruno Coulais and Irish folk music group Kíla are Cartoon Saloon regulars and return for Wolfwalkers. The musical ideas for Wolfwalkers’ score are not as apparent as the previous films in the triptych, as they are not quoting a song composed for the film. But the use of Irish instruments in their collaboration lends at atmospheric authenticity that only heaps upon the film’s sterling animation. Norwegian pop sensation AURORA has altered the lyrics and orchestration to her 2015 single “Running with the Wolves” to accompany a running scene that, by the filmmakers’ admission, was inspired by the running scene from The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (2013, Japan). The scene pales in comparison to the context and music from the late Isao Takahata’s final film, but Wolfwalkers is a movie more than the sum of its parts.

Production on Wolfwalkers was in its final stages as the COVID-19 pandemic reached the Republic of Ireland. When the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, announced a countrywide lockdown on March 12, 2020, Cartoon Saloon had already started preparing for a lockdown contingency three weeks’ prior. Clean-up was divided between Luxembourg-based Mélusine Productions and Cartoon Saloon’s headquarters in Kilkenny. After assessing the needs of the clean-up animators, both studios moved to remote work where the most pressing complication was their Internet bandwidth slowing down upload speeds.

Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych is finished. In the last eleven years, the studio has proven itself one of the most interesting and important animation studios currently working. They have even proven they can make quality films without its primary director, as evidenced by Nora Twomey’s The Breadwinner (Twomey’s next project for Cartoon Saloon is My Father’s Dragon, slated for a 2021 release). Though just an indie studio with limited resources, their standing in animated cinema has only strengthened with this, their most ambitious film to date. It might seem like a rehash of the animation from Kells, but Wolfwalkers has improved upon its predecessor, and boasts perhaps the most beautiful artwork of any animated movie released this year. The film’s grandeur belongs on a movie screen, but, understandably, very few will have the opportunity to experience it in such an environment. This latest, ageless triumph will outlast these extraordinary times.

My rating: 8.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

[edwardforkhands]

Asking for help to become not transphobic

This is a long rant, very unorganized. Sometimes I don’t know where I’m going with it. But basically, I’ve been on terfblr in secret for the last 3 years or so, and I’ve become transphobic during that time. I want help to try and change. If anyone could point me to any articles, documentaries, studies, etc to help me get out, I would appreciate it. If you can add in your own two cents, that would be appreciated as well. I’m not sure how much I’ll respond to replies or reblogs on this post, or DMs, as I’m pretty shy and non confrontational (hence why I was on terfblr in secret). But I will read everything!

Basically I agree with a lot of things terf believe, but one thing I want is to find a way to escape the transphobic side of everything. I want to be a radical feminist minus the trans exclusionary part. I’m pretty leftist and progressive, but I hate being bigoted in this way. I almost feel like someone that’s fallen down a neo nazi rabbit hole, in the ways that I have to hide my true beliefs from friends and family. The problem is, I just can’t find a way to for my brain to make peace with a lot of principles of present-day trans activism.

I feel like the only way to make progress is to first just flat out say I’m transphobic. In many ways I’m not, but in a lot of ways I am. That way when I ask my questions, people aren’t just like “that’s really transphobic of you to ask” and shut me down. I want to be kinder, but I need to be able to say what I think. Like how you need to be able to write out your math in order to find any mistakes. But the way things are now, my math looks perfectly fine to me.

So that everyone understands where I’m coming from, here’s a summary of my beliefs:

I agree with terfs/swerfs on a lot of things. I believe there are 2 sexes, gender is a social construct that is not at all innate, women face female-specific oppression, sex work is dehumanizing, there is no such thing as a genital fetish, I think in recent years that some people are transitioning when they not “actually trans,” etc. And there are some more petty things I get annoyed at like saying “uterus owners” or “pregnant people.” I also disagree with the term swerf (though I don’t think terf/swerfs are slurs). I want to protect women and sex workers. To me, this is like calling people who are against child labor “child exclusionary human rights activists.” In my mind I’m trying to do a good thing for them. Sex work is the commodification of consent— which imo can’t be commodified.

But then on the other hand there are a lot of topics on which terfs would disagree with me. I think we should respect peoples’ pronouns, trans people should be able to use what bathroom they want, using someone’s deadname is rude, for many people medical transition is necessary, there are cases where it is appropriate for children to transition, and even if gender roles were totally nonexistent, there would still be trans people.

Here’s where I think I started to get sucked up into “terf” ideology: I think dysphoria is necessary to be trans. I think this was the “gateway drug” that made me into a terf. This stems from my belief that there are two sexes, gender is fake, and your biology is tied to being trans. My understanding of dysphoria is this: It is a state of being dissatisfied with the sex of your body, feeling like it shouldn’t be the way it is. Like how some people feel like a limb shouldn’t exist, and they want to cut it off (I can see how this analogy is a bit transphobic, I just don’t see how else to explain my understanding). Dysphoria is innate, and would exist no matter how men and women are viewed in society. If you don’t have dysphoria, then what is the point of being trans? Is it to change the gender roles you have to/don’t have to adhere to? Could that not be solved by being gnc? And wouldn’t it be more progressive to push to abolish gender? How is transitioning without dysphoria anything other than reinforcing gender roles?

I’m not trying to be bigoted, these are genuine questions and concerns I have that keep me in terf circles.

There are also just so many things my eyes have been opened to on terfblr. Why porn and sex work is harmful to women, why makeup and sexualized clothing is bad, how to read between the lines in advertising targeting women, seeing just how much woman-hate there is everywhere and how acceptable it is in society. These are beliefs I could never see myself abandoning.

Just a heads up: I use the phrase “trans positive” as an antonym to the word “transphobic” (can’t think of a better one atm).

But with the whole trans issue, that’s where I feel like I might have crawled into a hole that I want to get myself out of. I don’t like that in being a terf, many would consider me to be a hateful and bigoted person. I want to be progressive, and on the right side of history. But there are so many things that I see in modern day trans activism that just don’t make sense to me logically, and some that I view as actively harmful. Like reinforcing gender roles, or eliminating the ability to talk about sex-specific and female-specific issues. It seems every few months things that were once considered trans positive to believe are now transphobic. Most of the time, progress like this is wonderful! It’s good when realize they have racist, sexist, homophobic, etc microagressions and work towards becoming better people. That’s great! But a lot of the times the new transphobic things just don’t make sense. For example, I realized saying things like “bitch” or “cunt” casually was sexist, and it made sense. But if I were to say your sexuality is based on someone’s sex, not their gender, that’s transphobic because it implies trans women aren’t real women, or trans men aren’t real men. If they pass, society can see them as being men or women. But biologically, they aren’t. That’s why the word “trans” goes in front of their name. It just doesn’t make sense to me how it’s transphobic to have a sexuality, so having what’s basically a “gender-ality” is the only acceptable thing now. Obviously it would be rude to go around telling every trans person “actually, you’re not a REAL man/woman!” randomly. But when the context permits, like with dating or for female-specific issues, I just don’t see how it’s transphobic to acknowledge a very relevant biological reality.

Trying to say anything relating to feminist issues in a non-transphobic way feels to me like walking on eggshells to escape a maze. It would be easy to give up and just say everything’s related to gender, sex is a social construct yet somehow gender’s innate, and go with the flow but I just can’t if it doesn’t make sense to me. I know I don’t have to understand everything about everyone else’s experiences, especially if it’s not hurting other people, but I feel like in some ways trans activism nowadays is.

I just wish all this made sense to me and I could happily say I support everything trans positive. I don’t want to be transphobic. In some ways I’m not, but in so many ways I am, and I want to change. But I want things to make sense at the same time. Currently it feels like terf beliefs align with common sense, while believing a lot of principles of trans activism takes so much mental gymnastics.

Obviously if you don’t want to respond you don’t have to. It’s not your responsibility to change me— it’s my responsibility to change myself, and fix my beliefs. But if anyone is willing to listen or help, that would be appreciated. I feel like a lot of terfs start out where I did— initially trans positive, but had just one or two issues that brought them to terfblr, and they come out the other side transphobic. Hopefully helping me will help at least one other person down the line.

I feel terrible interacting with trans people, knowing I follow and listen to so many terfs. I have so many conflicting feelings and beliefs and I wish things could balance out the right way.

[girl4music]

So I had to look up what a "TERF" is earlier because I actually didn't know what it means though I see it used very frequently on Tumblr. There's all these terms and labels and social media jargon for things that I don't know because I'm a noob and sit outside social circles where they are most often used. But anyway..., "TERF" is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism". So if you get called one, it means you're being referred to as a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". And I have been called one simply for not understanding very well what a "transgender" is. Or rather what the "trans" part specifically means. I thought it meant "transferring" but apparently I was very wrong about that. As a cisgender I try my hardest to understand as best I can from my own knowledge and my own ways of relation what it's like for someone who is trans. Try to understand the level of hate and disrespect they get for being trans. And I've come to the conclusion that that is impossible for me. I am not trans. So I'll never be able to fully understand the life of a person who is trans. But to use this lack of understanding as a way to say I exclude transpeople from my views and beliefs on human rights is too far out of context. It's completely wrong. And I am actually extremely hurt that anyone would ever think that way about me.

I can't explain things very well and I don't have the greatest understanding on the subject. This makes me ignorant at best. Someone who needs education. It does not make me a "TERF" because my intention is to support, protect and defend transpeople. Not do the opposite. I'm sorry you believe this way about me. But you are wrong about me. I will not accept your "views" of who I am and what I care about based on my lack of understanding and confusion on the subject material. Not when the last thing I want to do is hurt who the subject material it applies to......

I'll accept that:

I'm an idiot.

I'm stupid.

I need to be better educated.

But I am NOT trans-exclusionary.

Ever.

However, I do accept the feminist part. I do identify with that label. I am a feminist. Not necessarily a radical one. But I certainly stand up for women's rights. And yes, that does include trans women too and gender nonconformity

You can call me that all you like. That part doesn't bother me at all. I'm proud to be referred to as a feminist. But I am not okay with being called trans-exclusionary. That's inaccurate. I have the upmost respect for transpeople. I think they are very brave and strong to go through what they do in all the effort to just be who they are. Not that they have a choice not to go through it. Not when there is so many haters out there for the trans community. Just know that I am not one of them. I never was and I never will be. I just lack understanding. I don't lack accepting. I lack knowledge. I don't lack compassion.

I AM AN ALLY! I I am not a "TERF".