#and they were originally a cis woman but like

[fagbearentertainment]

[spirk-trek]

really love that for the metron design they went with "androgynous angel dressed head to toe in glitter"

[falinscloaca]

people who characterize marcille as ‘oh that lesbian elf motivated so much by how she wants to bang her s/o’ literally don’t get it. a marcille who KNOWS shes a lesbian would be on a whole ‘nother level of “annoying about it.” insert joke about gay being a characters only trait level annoying. she still writes off her gay shit as gender envy, protectiveness, or solidarity. once she realizes , its all over. shes going to be getting into harmful intra/ter-community discourse on twitter before collapsing into a years-long disillusionment wreckage as all her online buddies either go entirely transmisogynistic or end up overcorrecting and becoming a different kinda queerscourse radical. she even takes the word ‘lesbian’ out of all her urls :-(. not because she isn’t one or its bad but bc its a painful reminder of a sense of pride that now exists only in memory. and eventually she changes it to FALINSC-💥

[retordedd]

I never use this blog because the eddsworld fandom is genuinely the only fandom I've been completely fucking miserable trying to engage with. It's full of trans people and yet the community is SO hostile towards non-afab or non masc aligned in some way trans people. I've had people blatantly refused to respect my pronouns after saying they would. I've been misgendered in a server full of trans people where literally no one else was misgendered because there were pronoun roles. In that same server, while I was uplifting trans people making jokes about being proud of their bodies, they made fun of me for not having breasts. I've had multiple people debate my boundaries like it's a topic of discussion because I asked not to be called dude, a GENDERED TERM. I've had people gang up on me to the point of tears because I dared to describe my experiences being raised with an unconventional relationship to gender. I've been accused of holding grudges and being aggressive for even daring to speak up when I'm tired of being treated this way

And these events don't refer to a bunch of random assholes, they refer to people well known in the fandom. People I've seen on multiple servers. People whose names you say and it gets recognized

The eddsworld fandom has a HUGE transmisogyny problem and it needs to be discussed. The way I constantly feel unsafe when in a fandom surrounded by trans people is completely unacceptable

[bugbuoyx]

I think it's funny when people say trans men don't experience misogyny. I experience it alot as an out and proud and obvious trans person. Most folks are good, they don't blink an eye (even in the rural south) but for some you can see it like a switch. The biggest tell in my experience is they start treating you like the world's biggest idiot. Like you couldn't possibly know more than them about anything. I also tend to get babied, people stop letting me do things I was doing previously such as lifting heavy stuff and outdoorsy type work.

I just think it's ridiculous that the most basic elements of misogyny, elements that have been defined and discussed for years, no longer count as misogyny because it's directed at a trans guy. How do people even claim it's "misdirected" (which is such a bullshit word irt oppression) it's all very clearly directed at me for having formerly been a woman*. And what of my time spent living as a girl? Does all that misogyny mysteriously disappear, all of my former experiences rendered moot by the fact I'm now a guy*.

I haven't even gotten into how cis men can be misogynistic towards each other but rad fems and people who pretend they aren't rad fems but boil misogyny down to "woman only oppression" like to ignore that. What do you call it when a cis guy shames another guy by calling him a pussy? "You hit like a girl" anyone? You can't explain this away as "misdirected" because the intended target is not a girl, is not mistakenly being perceived as a girl, it is a deliberate act of misogyny in order to enforce the patriarchal status quo.

[toxiccaves]

with the recent discourse on genderbends, i think people should seperate the terms.

genderbend: that thing cis ppl do when theyre forcing gender stereotypes on characters to make them sexually appealing to them

trans or gender hc: playing with different identities or presentation on a character while avoiding stereotypes

though i think its interesting how terms online can either be forgotten or lose their meaning when something else is introduced (in this case, the introduction of trans hcs), while some people only know it as what it was, and others only know it as what its become. and i think thats where conflict arises.

[giantkillerjack]

My sister-in-law frustrates me to no end even though we barely ever interact because she keeps inviting my partner to parties with her Christian Republican friends, even though my partner told her not to send an invite to us if those friends will be there. And even though my sister-in-law is bisexual!!

And then she turns around and complains about not knowing how to deal with her friends saying, like, horrible sexist stuff as though that is just some natural unavoidable quirk of having friends!

Like, these Christian Republicans she has befriended don't seem to be kind - they're not even nice a lot of the time! They don't make for good friends, and she doesn't seem happy or supported in relation to them. In fact, she basically only ever talks about how her friends and/or current boyfriend are making her unhappy!

Because here's the thing: The effect of prioritizing 'including your Trump-supporter friends at your parties' over 'being invested in creating a safe space for marginalized people in your home', is that people who DO care about creating those safe spaces... won't wanna hang out with you! Because if you invite both cats and mice to your table equally, only the cats will show!

She's so afraid of losing the shitty friends she has now that she allows them to act as barriers to accessing friends who are invested in her wellbeing in a capitalistic hellscape!

It makes me sad because she's basically trapped herself, and there's nothing I can do to offer help without either compromising my morals or making my partner's life way harder by starting shit with her family.

Like, I consider myself a good friend, yeah? I try really really hard to be one, and it matters to me immensely. I am ride-or-die for the folks I love, and I am invested in being open and vulnerable and radically safe to be around when it comes to building strong friendships that are mutually fulfilling. I have a unique talent for validating people that I have honed for years because I genuinely want to make sure people feel safe and loved and seen.

And if my sister-in-law and I were friends, I could give all of that to her. I would strive to be an example of what it looks like when someone decides to care about you and treat you right on purpose, without expecting anything in return but your mutual respect. She would be family. She would be [Queer] Family. I would see to it that she knew she could call on me when she needed a friend.

But like.

This asshole has invited me to hang out with Trump supporters on multiple occasions.

We ain't gonna be friends.

[afooldyedinfolly]

If anything I make ever takes off I can see the absolute braindead takes people would have about how my LGBT+ rep is problematic with my eyes closed. Either because A) not everyone fits into neat little boxes and people hate that B) some will fall into stereotypes as if there’s never been a person who falls into those or a C) Some of them are VILLAINS. When like. Idk how to tell you this but A is not actually a problem you just have respectability brainrot, and B and C are only problems if that is your sole rep, that your message becomes ‘people who are blank are all <insert stereotype and/or negative trait here>’. Like I promise you the fact that 99% of the plots problems being traced back to a genderqueer man actually has 0 to do with my biases. I am a genderqueer man and there’s at least 20 other characters I have who also are genderqueer men, and at least two others in the aforementioned story where this occurs.  Just because I have one (1) instance of this does not actually mean I, a genderqueer man, actually hate genderqueer men, or that I didn’t think about the potential implications of the portrayal very carefully

Idk man if like the overwhelming majority of my characters are some flavour of alphabet soup that means sometimes you’re going to get evil lesbians and gay men and bisexuals and transgendered folks and a whole whole lot of evil +. Cry about it ig.

[autistichalsin]

In retrospect, four years later, I feel like the Isabel Fall incident was just the biggest ignored cautionary tale modern fandom spaces have ever had. Yes, it wasn't limited to fandom, it was also a professional author/booktok type argument, but it had a lot of crossover.

Stop me if you've heard this one before: a writer, whether fan or pro, publishes a work. If one were to judge a book by its cover, something we are all taught in Kindergarten shouldn't happen but has a way of occurring regardless, one might find that there was something that seemed deeply problematic about this work. Maybe the title or summary alluded to something Wrong happening, or maybe the tags indicated there was problematic kinks or relationships. And that meant the story was Bad. So, a group of people takes to the Twittersphere to inform everyone who will listen why the work, and therefore the author, are Bad. The author, receiving an avalanche of abuse and harassment, deactivates their account, and checks into a mental health facility for monitoring for suicidal ideation. They never return to their writing space, and the harassers get a slap on the wrist (if that- usually they get praise and high-fives all around) and start waiting for their next victim to transgress.

Sounds awful familiar, doesn't it?

Isabel Fall's case, though, was even more extreme for many reasons. See, she made the terrible mistake of using a transphobic meme as the genesis to actually explore issues of gender identity.

More specifically, she used the phrase "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" to examine how marginalized identities, when they become more accepted, become nothing more than a tool for the military-industrial complex to rebrand itself as a more personable and inclusive atrocity; a chance to pursue praise for bombing brown children while being progressive, because queer people, too, can help blow up brown children now! It also contained an examination of identity and how queerness is intrinsic to a person, etc.

But... well, if harassers ever bothered to read the things they critique, we wouldn't be here, would we? So instead, they called Isabel a transphobic monster for the title alone, even starting a misinformation campaign to claim she was, in fact, a cis male nazi using a fake identity to psyop the queer community.

A few days later, after days of horrific abuse and harassment, Isabel requested that Clarkesworld magazine pull the story. She checked in to a psych ward with suicidal thoughts. That wasn't all, though; the harassment was so bad that she was forced to out herself as trans to defend against the claims.

Only... we know this type of person, the fandom harassers, don't we? You know where this is going. Outing herself did nothing to stop the harassment. No one was willing to read the book, much less examine how her sexuality and gender might have influenced her when writing it.

So some time later, Isabel deleted her social media. She is still alive, but "Isabel Fall" is not- because the harassment was so bad that Isabel detransitioned/closeted herself, too traumatized to continue living her authentic life.

Supposed trans allies were so outraged at a fictional portrayal of transness, written by a trans woman, that they harassed a real life trans woman into detransitioning.

It's heartbreakingly familiar, isn't it? Many of us in fandom communities have been in Isabel's shoes, even if the outcome wasn't so extreme (or in some cases, when it truly was). Most especially, many of us, as marginalized writers speaking from our own experiences in some way, have found that others did not enjoy our framework for examining these things, and hurt us, members of those identities, in defense of "the community" as a nebulous undefined entity.

There's a quote that was posted in a news writeup about the whole saga that was published a year after the fact. The quote is:

The delineation between paranoid and reparative readings originated in 1995, with influential critic Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. A paranoid reading focuses on what’s wrong or problematic about a work of art. A reparative reading seeks out what might be nourishing or healing in a work of art, even if the work is flawed. Importantly, a reparative reading also tends to consider what might be nourishing or healing in a work of art for someone who isn’t the reader. This kind of nuance gets completely worn away on Twitter, home of paranoid readings. “[You might tweet], ‘Well, they didn’t discuss X, Y, or Z, so that’s bad!’ Or, ‘They didn’t’ — in this case — ‘discuss transness in a way that felt like what I feel about transness, therefore it is bad.’ That flattens everything into this very individual, very hostile way of reading,” Mandelo says. “Part of reparative reading is trying to think about how a story cannot do everything. Nothing can do everything. If you’re reading every text, fiction, or criticism looking for it to tick a bunch of boxes — like if it represents X, Y, and Z appropriately to my definitions of appropriate, and if it’s missing any of those things, it’s not good — you’re not really seeing the close focus that it has on something else.”

A paranoid reading describes perfectly what fandom culture has become in the modern times. It is why "proship", once simply a word for common sense "don't engage with what you don't like, and don't harass people who create it either" philosophies, has become the boogeyman of fandom, a bad and dangerous word. The days of reparative readings, where you would look for things you enjoyed, are all but dead. Fiction is rarely a chance to feel joy; it's an excuse to get angry, to vitriolically attack those different from oneself while surrounded with those who are the same as oneself. It's an excuse to form in-groups and out-groups that must necessarily be in a constant state of conflict, lest it come across like This side is accepting That side's faults. In other words, fandom has become the exact sort of space as the nonfandom spaces it used to seek to define itself against.

It's not about joy. It's not about resonance with plot or characters. It's about hate. It's about finding fault. If they can't find any in the story, they will, rest assured, create it by instigating fan wars- dividing fandom into factions and mercilessly attacking the other.

And that's if they even went so far as to read the work they're critiquing. The ones they don't bother to read, as you saw above, fare even worse. If an AO3 writer tagged an abuser/victim ship, it's bad, it's fetishism, even if the story is about how the victim escapes. If a trans writer uses the title "I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter" to find a framework to dissect rainbow-washing the military-industrial complex, it's unforgivable. It's a cesspool of kneejerk reactions, moralizing discomfort, treating good/evil as dichotomous categories that can never be escaped, and using that complex as an excuse to heap harassment on people who "deserve it." Because once you are Bad, there is no action against you that is too Bad for you to deserve.

Isabel Fall's story follows this so step-by-step that it's like a textbook case study on modern fandom behavior.

Isabel Fall wrote a short story with an inflammatory title, with a genesis in transphobic mockery, in the hopes of turning it into a genuine treatise on the intersection of gender and sexuality and the military-industrial complex. But because audiences are unprepared for the idea of inflammatory rhetoric as a tool to force discomfort to then force deeper introspection... they zeroed in on the discomfort. "I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter"- the title phrase, not the work- made them uncomfortable. We no longer teach people how to handle discomfort; we live in a world of euphemism and glossing over, a world where people can't even type out the words "kill" and rape", instead substituting "unalive" and "grape." We don't deal with uncomfortable feelings anymore; we censor them, we transform them, we sanitize them. When you are unable to process discomfort, when you are never given self-soothing tools, your only possible conclusion is that anything Uncomfortable must be Bad, and the creator must either be censored too, or attacked into conformity so that you never again experience the horrors of being Uncomfortable.

So the masses took to Twitter, outraged. They were Uncomfortable, and that de facto meant that they had been Wronged. Because the content was related to trans identity issues, that became the accusation; it was transphobic, inherently. It couldn't be a critique of bigger and more fluid systems than gender identity alone; it was a slight against trans people. And no amount of explanations would change their minds now, because they had already been aggrieved and made to feel Uncomfortable.

Isabel Fall was now a Bad Person, and we all know what fandom spaces do to Bad People. Bad People, because they are Bad, will always be deserving of suicide bait and namecalling and threatening. Once a person is Bad, there is no way to ever become Good again. Not by refuting the accusations (because the accusations are now self-evident facts; "there is a callout thread against them" is its own tautological proof that wrongdoing has happened regardless of the veracity of the claims in the callout) and not by apologizing and changing, because if you apologize and admit you did the Bad thing, you are still Bad, and no matter what you do in future, you were once Bad and that needs to be brought up every time you are mentioned. If you are bad, you can NEVER be more than what you were at your worst (in their definition) moment. Your are now ontologically evil, and there is no action taken against you that can be immoral.

So Isabel was doomed, naturally. It didn't matter that she outed herself to explain that she personally had lived the experience of a trans woman and could speak with authority on the atrocity of rainbow-washing the military industrial complex as a proaganda tool to capture progressives. None of it mattered. She had written a work with an Uncomfortable phrase for a title, the readers were Uncomfortable, and someone had to pay for it.

And that's the key; pay for it. Punishment. Revenge. It's never about correcting behavior. Restorative justice is not in this group's vocabulary. You will, incidentally, never find one of these folks have a stance against the death penalty; if you did Bad as a verb, you are Bad as an intrinsic, inescapable adjective, and what can you do to incorrigible people but kill them to save the Normal people? This is the same principle, on a smaller scale, that underscores their fandom activities; if a Bad fan writes Bad fiction, they are a Bad person, and their fandom persona needs to die to save Normal fans the pain of feeling Uncomfortable.

And that's what happened to Isabel Fall. The person who wrote the short story is very much alive, but the pseudonym of Isabel Fall, the identity, the lived experiences coming together in concert with imagination to form a speculative work to critique deeply problematic sociopolitical structures? That is dead. Isabel Fall will never write again, even if by some miracle the person who once used the name does. Even if she ever decides to restart her transition, she will be permanently scarred by this experience, and will never again be able to share her experience with us as a way to grow our own empathy and challenge our understanding of the world. In spirit, but not body, fandom spaces murdered Isabel Fall.

And that's... fandom, anymore. That's just what is done, routinely and without question, to Bad people. Good people are Good, so they don't make mistakes, and they never go too far when dealing with Bad people. And Bad people, well, they should have thought before they did something Bad which made them Bad people.

Isabel Fall's harassment happened in early 2020, before quarantine started, but it was in so many ways a final chance for fandom to hit the breaks. A chance for fandom to think collectively about what it wanted to be, who it wanted to be for and how it wanted to do it. And fandom looked at this and said, "more, please." It continues to harass marginalized people, especially fans of color and queen fans, into suffering mental breakdowns. With gusto.

Any ideas of reparative reading is dead. Fandom runs solely on paranoid readings. And so too is restorative justice gone for fandom transgressions, real or imagined. It is now solely about punitive, vigilante justice. It's a concerted campaign to make sure oddballs conform or die (in spirit, but sometimes even physically given how often mentally ill individuals are pushed into committing suicide).

It's a deeply toxic environment and I'm sad to say that Isabel Fall's story was, in retrospect, a sort of event horizon for the fandom. The gravitational pull of these harassment campaigns is entirely too strong now and there is no escaping it. I'm sorry, I hate to say something so bleak, but thinking the last few days about the state of fandom (not just my current one but also others I watch from the outside), I just don't think we can ever go back to peaceful "for joy" engagement, not when so many people are determined to use it as an outlet for lateral aggression against other people.

[strange-aeons]

hi strange, random but i made a tumblr account specifically for this. i was watching your tumblr trad wives video and i really enjoyed it, was a fun watch, ive been generally watching a lot of your stuff recently as sort of like, comfort content (?) for lack of a better term. anyway, it got to a bit you were talking about how a lot of it is from like a similar origin point of like misogyny and patriarchy and how poeple cope with it, but you specifically said "horrors of being afab"? im definitely overreacting but it really hurt in the moment to be hearing something i personally related to and understood only to be suddenly excluded from it (im a trans woman), i had to click off. i know you cant take it back, that video was ages ago, but i know you're not like transphobic or anything so i thought id tell you that it really hurt and sounds worse than you meant and it'd be really nice if you could avoid stuff like that in future. thanks

Trans women absolutely need to be included in conversations about misogyny and patriarchy.

When I said “the horrors of being afab” in that video i think i meant “the specific horrors of being seen as a subservient baby machine.” and I chose “afab people” instead of “women” because i know a lot of people who no longer consider themselves women still relate to that experience. In retrospect, I should have just said “the specific horrors of being seen as a subservient baby machine” because — as i’m realizing more and more frequently — afab is rarely a useful category. And it doesn’t surprise me at all that trans women can relate to most everything else i said in that video.

Yes there are specific horrors to having/growing up with a uterus but the horrors of womanhood are a MUCH larger conversation.

For anyone unfamiliar: the video was about a specific continuum of #girl online subcultures like tradwives, cottagecore, and coquette. As far as I’ve been able to tell, they do tend to be mainly made up of cis women. I’d be fascinated to hear more about trans women's experiences with those kinds of online spaces.

[phoenixyfriend]

DISCLAIMER: I am not trans myself*, but I've been wondering what the spread of phrasing is. I consulted with a trans friend for options. These are ALL things I've seen or heard people say, including "back when I was a man" from a trans woman. This isn't about what you think people SHOULD say, just what you personally use.

Please stay polite about how people use language to describe their own experiences.

Cis people PLEASE do not vote, I want to see the actual spread of results, and too many "other" or "this is how I WOULD if I were trans" votes will skew the results. You'll get to see the answers in a week.

Finally, I recognize that some of these can describe different points in the same transition (e.g. "before I figured out" and "before I transitioned" can be used by the same person to describe experiences at two different moments), but just go with what feels best.

* I have a weird relationship with gender that's mostly cis but not quite, and not different enough for me to feel like Trans applies. I originally had a different, more joke-y phrasing there, but was told I might get flack for it since most people do not live in my brain.

[communistkenobi]

Would you be willing to dunk on speak more on mainstream feminist theory you're reading? And/or share some of the non-juvenile feminist theory you've read?

(Note: I will try to link to open access versions of articles as much as possible, but some of them are paywalled. if the links dont work just type the titles into google and add pdf at the end, i found them all that way)

If there’s any one singular issue with mainstream feminist thought that can be generalized to "The Problem With Mainstream Feminism" (and by mainstream I mean white, cishet, bourgeois feminism, the “canonical feminism” that is taught in western universities) it’s that gender is treated as something that can stand by itself, by which I mean, “gender” is a complete unit of analysis from which to understand social inequality. You can “add” race, class, ability, national origin, religion, sexuality, and so on to your analysis (each likewise treated as full, discrete categories of the social world), but that gender itself provides a comprehensive (or at the very least “good enough”) view of a given social problem. (RW Connell, who wrote the canonical text Masculinities (1995) and is one of the feminist scholars who coined/popularized the term hegemonic masculinity, is a fantastic example of this.)

Black feminists have for many decades pointed out how fucking ridiculous this is, especially vis a vis race and class, because Black women do not experience misogyny and racism as two discrete forms of oppression in their lives, they are inextricably linked. The separation of gender and race is not merely an analytical error on the part of white feminists - it is a continuation of the long white supremacist tradition of bounding gender in exclusively white terms. Patricia Hill Collins in Black Feminist Thought (2000) engages with this via a speech by Sojourner Truth, the most famous line from her speech being “ain’t I a woman?” as she describes all the aspects of womanhood she experiences but is still denied the position of woman by white women because she is Black. Lugones in Coloniality of Gender (2008) likewise brings up the example of segregationist movements in the USAmerican South, where towns would put up banners saying things like “Protect Southern Women” as a rationale for segregation, making it very clear who they viewed as women. Sylvia Wynter in 1492: A New World View likewise points out that colonized women and men were treated like cattle by Spanish colonizers in South America, often counted in population measures as "heads of Indian men and women," as in heads of cattle. They were treated as colonial resources, not as gendered subjects capable of rational thought.

To treat the category of “woman” as something that stands by itself is a white supremacist understanding of gender, because “woman” always just means white woman - the fact that white is left implied is part of white supremacy, because who is granted subjecthood, the ability to be seen as human and therefore a gendered subject, is a function of race (see Quijano, 2000). Crenshaw (1991) operationalizes this through the term intersectionality, pointing out that law treats gender and race as separate social sites of discrimination, and the practical effect of this is that Black women have limited/no legal recourse when they face discrimination because they experience it as misogynoir, as the multiplicative effect of their position as Black women, not as sexism on the one hand and racism on the other.

Transfeminist theory has further problematized the category of gender by pointing out that "woman" always just means cis woman (and more often than not also means heterosexual woman). The most famous of these critiques comes from Judith Butler - I’m less familiar with their work, but there is a great example in the beginning of Bodies That Matter (1993) where they demonstrate that personhood itself is a gendered social position. They ask (and I’m paraphrasing) “when does a fetus stop becoming an ‘it’? When its gender is declared by a doctor or nurse via ultrasound.” Sex assignment is not merely a social practice of patriarchal division, it is the medium through which the human subject is created (and recall that gender is fundamentally racialized & race is fundamentally gendered, which I will come back to).

And the work of transfeminists demonstrate this by showing transgender people are treated as non-human, non-citizens. Heath Fogg Davis in Sex-Classification Policies as Transgender Discrimination (2014) recounts the story of an African American transgender woman in Pennsylvania being denied use of public transit, because her bus pass had an F gender marker on it (as all buss passes in the state required gender markers until 2013) and the bus driver refused her service because she “didn’t look like a woman.” She was denied access to transit again when she got her marker changed to M, as she “didn’t look like a man.” Transgender people are thus denied access to basic public services by being constructed as “administratively impossible” - gender markers are a component of citizenship because they appear on all citizenship documents, as well as a variety of civil and public documents (such as a bus pass). Gender markers, even when changed by trans people (an arduous, difficult process in most places on earth, if not outright impossible), are seen as fraudulent & used as a basis to deny us citizenship rights. Toby Beauchamp in Going Stealth: Transgender Politics & US Surveillance Practices (2019) talks about anti-trans bathroom bills as a form of citizenship denial to trans people - anti-trans bathroom laws are impossible to actually enforce because nobody is doing genital inspections of everyone who enters bathrooms (and genitals are not proof of transgenderism!), but that’s actually not the point. The point of these bills is to embolden members of the cissexual public to deputize themselves on behalf of the state to police access to public space, directing their cissexual gaze towards anyone who “looks transgender.” Beauchamp points out that transvestigators don’t need to be accurate most of the time, because again, the point is terrorizing transgender people out of public life. He connects this with racial segregation, and argues that we shouldn’t view gender segregation as “a new form of” racial segregation (this is a duplication of white supremacist feminism) but a continuation of it, because public access is a citizenship right and citizenship is fundamentally racially mediated (see Glenn's (2002) Unequal Freedom)

Susan Stryker & Nikki Sullivan further drives this home in The King’s Member, The Queen’s Body, where they explain the history of the crime of mayhem. Originating in feudal Europe (I don’t remember off the dome the exact time/place so forgive the generalization lol), mayhem is the crime of self-mutilation for the purposes of avoiding military conscription, but what is interesting is that its not actually legally treated as “self” mutilation, but a mutilation of the state and its capacity to exercise its own power. They link the concept of mayhem to the contemporary hysteria around transgender people receiving bottom surgery - we are not in fact self mutilating, we are mutilating the state’s ability to reproduce its own population by permanently destroying (in the eyes of the cissexual public) our capacity to form the foundational social unit of the nuclear family. Our bodies are not our own, they are a component of the state. Situating this in the context of reproductive rights makes this even clearer. Abortion access is not actually about the individual, it is the state mediating its own reproductive capacity via the restriction of abortion (premised on the cissexual logic of binary reproductive capacity systematized through sex assignment). Returning to Hill Collins, she points out that in the US, white cis women are restricted access to abortion while Black and Indigenous cis women are routinely forcibly sterilized, their children aborted, and pumped with birth control by the state. This is not a contradiction or point of “hypocrisy” on the part of conservatives, this is a fully comprehensive plan of white supremacist population management.

To treat "gender" as its own category, as much of mainstream feminism does (see Acker (1990) and England (2010) for two hilarious examples of this, both widely cited feminists), is to forward a white supremacist notion of gender. That white supremacy is fundamentally cissexual and heterosexual is not an accident - it is a central organizing logic that allows for the systematization of the fear of declining white birthrates (the conspiracy of "white genocide" is illegible without the base belief that there are two kinds of bodies, one that gets pregnant and one that does the impregnating, and that these two types of bodies are universal sources of evidence of the superiority of men over women - and im using those terms in the most loaded possible sense).

I realize that most of these readings are US centric, which is an unfortunate limitation of my own education. I have been really trying to branch into literature outside the Global North, but doctoral degree constraints + time constraints + my own research requires continual engagement with it. I also realize that most of the transfeminist readings I've cited are by white scholars! This is a continual systemic problem in academic literature and I'm not exempt from it, even as I sit here and lay out the problem. Which is to say, this is nowhere near the final word on this subject, and having to devote so much time to reading mainstream feminist theory as someone who is in western academia is part of my own limited education + perspective on this topic

[joannechocolat]

Two Boxers Walk Into the Ring...

No-one can have missed the absolute scenes on social media, both before and after the boxing match between Imane Khelife and Angela Carini, from which Carini withdrew after just 46 seconds, having received a blow to the face.

Social media had already been abuzz with unfounded claims that Khelife was a man, largely based on her athletic (and to Westerners, “masculine”) body type. (The same rumours had also been spread about Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-Ting; also a woman, assigned female at birth, who got into boxing to protect her mother from domestic violence.) From this explosion of misinformation came increasingly wild claims from all the usual suspects: that she was trans (in spite of coming from a Muslim country where transitioning isn’t allowed); that she had “self-identified” as a woman in order to win (again, not possible in Algeria) plus some quite ghoulish speculation about her sex organs, her medical history and the type of puberty she might have undergone.

But here’s the thing.

Khelife is not trans. There is one trans boxer at the Olympics, a trans man called Hergie Bacyadan, who for some reason has gone almost unnoticed in this desperate attempt to prove a conspiracy that just isn’t happening. Imane Khelife was assigned female at birth, has a passport confirming it, and has spent her life as a woman, fighting against her country’s patriarchal ideas of what women are supposed to do. Not only this, but she is an ambassador for women and girls, who originally took up boxing to protect herself from those who disapproved of her interest in sports.

She was disqualified from the 2023 women’s world championships because (according to a Russian source that becomes less and less trustworthy the more you look into it) tests apparently showed some kind of unspecified anomaly, which may have been either elevated testosterone (quite possible in a woman) or the presence of XY chromosomes, once more altogether possible for a cis woman.

Nor does her condition (if she even has one) mean she is automatically likely to win against her opponents. In 2020, she made it to the quarter-finals of the Olympics, where she was defeated by Kellie Harrington, and she has been boxing on the international circuit for years without any of her wins or defeats gaining much attention.

Until now.

But her fight against Angela Carini on Thursday made her a magnet for some truly disgusting hate, largely, it seems, from the kind of men who enjoy threatening women, whatever the reason or excuse. In fact, there were distinct parallels with this and the recent anti-Muslim riots in Southport after the murderer of three little girls was falsely rumoured by agents of the far-right to be a Muslim immigrant.

Let’s be clear. Even if the attacker had been a Muslim immigrant, this violence would have been completely unacceptable. But the mob just wanted the opportunity to scapegoat and attack a community, in exactly the same way that the people attacking, threatening and objectifying Imane Khelife wanted the chance to attack a woman for not conforming to their idea of what a woman should be like.

In this context, it’s hard to see the rage and violence levelled against her for this victory as anything other than misogynistic - and racist.

It’s also hard to understand why in a sport like boxing – where the whole point is to hit your opponent – a person should be criticized for following the rules of the sport. It’s almost as if excellence is allowed in men’s sports, but in women’s sports, it’s automatically viewed as suspicious. And Imane Khelife isn’t the only athlete of colour accused of “being a man” because she defeated a white woman. Serena Williams has spent her career fending off accusations that she “was born a man” both because of her muscular physique and her excellence in her field. Caster Semenya, who has naturally elevated levels of testosterone, has been likewise demonized. It’s almost as if the people driving this toxic narrative believe that only men can excel in sport.   

And as for the argument that claims that elevated natural testosterone levels in a woman is “an unfair advantage,” don’t all elite athletes have some kind of physical advantage? Do we dismiss basketball players for being unusually tall, or weight-lifters for being unusually muscular, or runners for being lean and light? Why do we celebrate Michael Phelps for his genetic advantage, but penalize Caster Semenya for hers? Women have fought so very hard for the chance to participate in sports that were once seen as the sole province of men. Now, when they dare to excel in them, they are accused of secretly being men, or of not being “proper women.”

This isn’t any kind of feminism I recognize. The feminism I believe in is about breaking down barriers, not setting them. I personally dislike boxing (both for men and for women), but I respect any individual’s choice to compete. And attacking a woman boxer for winning a boxing match is as misogynistic as claiming to “defend” her opponent by painting her as a victim. Both athletes chose to compete. Both accepted the risks. Both have had their Olympic moment ruined by people who don’t care about sports, or the facts, or even women. This isn’t feminism. This is the worst and most patronizing kind of prejudice, and it actively hurts women – all women, but especially women of colour and those who do not conform to traditional ideas of what a woman should look like, what sports she should enjoy, or how she should behave.

Women fought for years for the right to make their own choices, to have their own identities outside of the stereotypes set by the patriarchy. Questioning those choices - those identities - isn’t progress.

 Supporting women doesn’t mean protecting them from themselves.

It means not setting limits on who a woman wants to be.

[evidence-based-activism]

what are your thoughts on the whole situation with the women’s Olympic boxing competitors Andrea Carini and Imane Khelif? I don’t know why feminists are so mad about it, Imane is a cis woman or has an intersex condition, either way she’s not a man.. I thought feminists were supposed to support women winning

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/s/taXu5IeFZc

Hello!

I expect you also sent the ask with the following link: https://www.tumblr.com/assignedmale/757629682153897984?

So, my short answer is that the situation is complex and I don't believe we have enough information to come to a definitive conclusion. In addition, the current cultural context about "trans athletes" is only exacerbating the already complex issue.

---

My long answer:

My understanding of the situation is that Khelif is a biologically male individual (i.e., "of the sex" that produces the small gamete/sperm) with a difference/disorder of sexual development (DSD, commonly referred to as "intersex") and was, as a result of this DSD, assigned the female sex at birth.

I want to take a moment here to point out that this is the exact sort of situation the AFAB/AMAB labels were created for. The vast majority of individuals are not "assigned" a sex, they are observed to be a particular sex (OFAB/OMAB?). It is in this sort of situation, where the sex is ambiguous or incorrectly determined that the “assignment” comes into play. Further, I will be referring to all AFAB individuals as "she", given the sociocultural context in which biologically male, AFAB individuals are raised and treated as women.

That being said, the participation of people with DSDs in competitive sports is an ongoing, contentious debate that is both separate from and related to the debate about the inclusion of transwomen in women's sports.

In reference to Khelif, it appears as though the original regulatory agency for boxing (IBA) disqualified her on the basis of her DSD. However, they have lost their position due to (either claims of or actual) corruption. The IOC defaulted to determining eligibility based the sex listed on the athlete's passport, which for Khelif is female (as she is AFAB).

The issue here is we do not know what her DSD is. The IBA claims she has XY chromosomes, but there are multiple conditions this can occur with. For example, as described in [1]:

Individuals with 5ARD2 are "genetic males and exhibit phenotypic male features at puberty and during adulthood". They are "raised as girls during childhood" but "usually develop a near-normal male phenotype" after puberty.

Individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) have "no tissue response to testosterone and no masculinization" even at puberty where they can develop a "near-normal female phenotype". This is despite them having testosterone in the "normal adult male range".

Individuals with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) "show a range of phenotypes with progressive masculinization depending on the degree of androgen insensitivity".

Just based on this, the best solution for each of these may be different. For example, it likely would be unfair for someone with 5ARD2 to compete in the female category, although it would be reasonable for them to compete in the male category. On the other hand, it would likely be unfair to prevent someone with CAIS from competing with other women, even with their male-typical testosterone levels.

And speaking of testosterone:

The same article [1] describes how men's testosterone level is substantially greater than women's levels, even in women with PCOS. (If you look at the article, make sure to take note of the log-scale. It highlights that the mean/median level in any male subgroup is more than 5 times the mean/median level in any female subgroup.) But again ... does the amount of testosterone really matter if the tissues don't respond to it (as in CAIS)?

In contrast, this study [2] also takes note that "testosterone exposure at puberty had unique effects such as changing skeletal structure and limb length which estrogen exposure to later in life cannot suppress" in males without a DSD. So, it's unlikely that artificially lowering the testosterone in individuals with 5ARD2 or PAIS (or males without a DSD, as in transwomen) would resolve the advantage.

So ... there are clear and significant differences in testosterone between men and women, even when they have a DSD. But in some cases (e.g., CAIS) the difference may not be relevant, and in other cases (e.g., artificial hormone suppression) a lack of difference may not be relevant.

I mention all of this to highlight how the situation is nuanced, and why I don't think we can make any judgements about Khelif. But I also want to explain how this situation is, in fact, connected to the "trans athlete" debate. It's a matter of public trust —specifically public trust in the athletic regulatory agencies.

Currently, there are regulatory boards that are making decisions that are neither consistent with biological realities [1, 2] or public opinion [3-5]. These decisions allow unambiguously biologically male individuals to compete with women.

Now to be clear, this particular case (Khelif) does not fall into this category. The problem here is one of trust: how can the public (or the other athletes) trust these regulatory agencies to make sound and fair decisions on complex cases involving DSDs if they can't adhere to scientific consensus on far clearer situations?

This is important, because athletes also deserve medical privacy. I am aware that public figures are often expected to give up a degree of their personal privacy rights (although I disagree with the extent of this). However, I expect most people will agree it's unreasonable to expect an athlete with a DSD (or any other medical condition) to release the extensive amounts of personal medical information needed to prove it is fair for them to compete with women. This is why we need trustworthy regulatory agencies, so that the public and other athletes can know that this information was provided and appropriately assessed without it having to be made public.

(And none of this touches on how the current disregard for clarity of language (e.g., claiming transwomen are "biologically female") has created so much confusion that many people seem to believe Khelif was AMAB.)

---

In addition to all of that, the harassment and vitriol being directed at both women in this situation is excessive, unhelpful, and harmful. I've seen racist and misogynistic comments that black women are "more masculine". I've also seen misogynistic comments that Carini is "weak" for exiting the fight. Slurs are being directed at both women, and in neither case is that acceptable.

I understand why the tone of this debate is so hostile, but I do not support the behavior.

For the comic: the claim that "science and experience shows trans athletes on H.R.T are at a disadvantage" is false (see [2]). The rest of the comic neglects to consider the nuance of the situations and the current cultural context. That being said, most people arguing that Khelif shouldn't compete in women's sports are also ignoring the nuance of the situation.

---

All in all, I do not think we currently have enough information to draw any conclusion or make any decisions about this specific situation. That being said, the current sociocultural context has inflamed this debate, created confusion, and eroded public trust in the parties responsible for making the aforementioned decisions. I personally consider that to be the more relevant issue.

References under the cut:

Clark, Richard V., et al. “Large Divergence in Testosterone Concentrations between Men and Women: Frame of Reference for Elite Athletes in Sex‐specific Competition in Sports, a Narrative Review.” Clinical Endocrinology, vol. 90, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 15–22. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.13840.

Luu, Tyler. “Should Transgender Athletes Be Allowed to Compete with Cisgender Athletes?” University of Toronto’s Journal of Scientific Innovation, Feb. 2022, pp. 59–65. jps.library.utoronto.ca, https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/jsi/article/view/38091.

Brown, Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz and Anna. “Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues.” Pew Research Center, 28 June 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/.

Where Does the British Public Stand on Transgender Rights in 2022? | YouGov. https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1

Where Americans Stand on 20 Transgender Policy Issues | YouGov. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48685-where-americans-stand-on-20-transgender-policy-issues.

[genderkoolaid]

still fucking pissed about the way im being treated by my professor. she basically told me to my face that my trans experiences & opinions were too advanced and complicated for our class, & that she had to teach them the basics...

and what exactly are those basics? cis people. cis experiences. cis opinions. this is not intersectionality. "basic feminism" should not mean white cis feminism. & i feel like she is projecting onto my classmates, many of whom seem very interested in what I have to say. one cis boy in my class even tried raising questions about nonbinary people based on those in his life, and she shut him down because she refused to understand what he was talking about. she's just fucking obsessed with her idea of feminism while trying to feel like an intersectional ally yet the minute ANYONE brings up trans people when she doesn't want them to, she throws a little fit.

just. when exactly are cis people supposed to learn about us? i am used to having to explain transness to cis people. i am willing to do that! i am willing to simplify it if need be! but cis adults & older teens can handle being challenged a little bit. in fact I'd say it's pretty healthy for them to be introduced to trans theory as part of their introduction to feminism, especially in an age where transness is a major part of the ongoing culture war. but noooo god forbid this cis woman's ego is challenged in the slightest. god forbid i have an original thought about gender that i didn't get from her fucking textbook

[momxijinping]

GIRLS YOU CAN HIT (original .pdf)

WHY DO FASCISTS WANT TO KILL TRANS WOMEN?

In a nine-day period between June 25 and July 3, six Black trans women - Brayla Stone, Merci Mack, Shaki Peters, Draya McCarty, and Tatiana Hall - were found murdered. The news barely made a ripple; Black trans women and trans women of color are murdered regularly - and no one is shocked, because the gender class structure is operating as usual. Liberal-individualist analysis claims that this is simply the result of amorphous personal "prejudices" -- that individual men, fearful of the unknown or afraid of change, attack trans women for personal reasons.

This is both idealist and ahistorical, a comforting fantasy that naturalizes and atomizes the oppression of trans women as a class and protects the underlying gender class structure of the empire.

In fact, reactionaries make trans women a primary target. ICE imprisons trans women in special separate concentration camps under under even worse conditions than cisgender men and women, and during protests, police subject captured trans women for especially brutal treatment. On July 25, a group of pro-police protesters outside Pittsburgh switched their chant from “all lives matter" to "kill transgenders" and "kill faggots." State power and reactionary elements target trans women specifically - but why? Because the oppression of trans women as a class is critical to the gender class structure of the empire, and by centering the oppression of trans women in our material feminist analysis, we can understand that class structure much more clearly.

WHAT IS THE GENDER CLASS STRUCTURE OF THE EMPIRE?

Fundamentally, the gender class structure is built on the domination of white men over women; white women constitute a subordinated but privileged class under the control ("protection") of white men, and reactionary white manhood is ultimately defined in terms of control of women.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF TRANS WOMEN (AND NONBINARY TRANSFEMININE PEOPLE, WHO ARE TREATED LIKE TRANS WOMEN) IN THIS GENDER CLASS STRUCTURE?

Trans women, nonbinary transfeminine people, and feminine gay cisgender men are treated as a gender underclass. Structurally, they are "girls you can hit." They are also subject to substantial sexual violence in the form of sexual assault and rape. Cisgender women from oppressed and colonized nations are treated more like "girls you can hit" if they are less acceptable as potential members of the "protected" class of potential wives and mothers.

Thus, Black and Indigenous women are treated disposably as "girls you can hit." Likewise, sex workers, who are seen as disqualified from the "protected" class of women, are "girls you can hit." The further they are from the "protected" class of women, the more disposable they are, and they are treated more and more like trans women. This develops intersectionally as well; Black trans women are often accused of sex work to justify violent treatment, and Black trans women sex workers are murdered casually.

WHY DO CISGENDER MEN OPPRESS TRANS WOMEN? IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO CISGENDER MEN BENEFIT MATERIALLY FROM OPPRESSING TRANS WOMEN?

This dynamic arises in childhood, where they are an acceptable target for violence and covert sex ("practice girls") by boys trying to enact their manhood. Men can gain status and an identity as controllers of women by hurting “girls you can hit." They "protect" (white, cis) women in the same way that the police "protect" communities: by enacting violence on the underclass, they gain control over the "respectable" class of women.

The threat to the women they control is supposed to be implicit, not enacted: "Serve me faithfully and you will never be hurt the way | hurt those sissies in middle school." But the opposite side of the coin is that any "protected" woman who refuses to comply in a serious and sustained way can be threatened with degradation to the underclass.

WHY DO CISGENDER WOMEN OPPRESS TRANS WOMEN? IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO CISGENDER WOMEN BENEFIT MATERIALLY FROM OPPRESSING TRANS WOMEN?

They get to not be treated like trans women, sex workers, and other "girls you can hit." Their respectable status is contingent on having an underclass they are not part of.

HOW DOES THE OPPRESSION OF TRANS MEN (AND NONBINARY TRANSMASCULINE PEOPLE, WHO ARE TREATED LIKE TRANS MEN) FIT INTO THIS GENDER CLASS STRUCTURE?

The greatest threat to a trans woman's life is being treated like a trans woman. For trans men and nonbinary transmasculine people, the greatest threat to their lives is being treated like a cis woman. We can see this play out in fascist fantasies of "correcting’ trans men to become cis women, and in the way that transmisogynists like JK Rowling claim that "trans activists [code for trans women] are seducing your daughters into mutilating their healthy, fertile female bodies in an impossible attempt to become men." In fascist and reactionary rhetoric, trans men are framed as deluded, innocent cis women who have to be saved from a horrible error. In the material world, this agenda often plays out in the form of corrective rape and other atrocities.

Trans men from colonized communities are treated much more violently, as in the case of the murdered Tony McDade; there is no prospect of forcing them to be "protected" women, so they are treated disposablly, like trans women.

HOW DOES TRANS WOMEN’S LIBERATION THREATEN THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EMPIRE? IN OTHER WORDS, WHY DO REACTIONARIES WANT TO WIPE OUT TRANS WOMEN?

The reactionaries are not mistaken to see the liberation of trans women (and sex workers) as linked to the liberation of cis women from colonized communities, nor is their targeting of trans women a mistake.

The liberation of trans women and "girls you can hit" in general would invert the gendered class structure of the empire and strike a critical blow to the control of "protected" women that reactionary men depend on for both social reproduction, personal exercise of power, and identity formation.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR US?

We must center the liberation of trans women, sex workers, and other “girls you can hit." This will immediately help to liberate cis women from colonized nations, remove the hierarchical power of "protected" white cis women over other women, degrade the power of white cisgender men over oppressed genders, and remove the basis for treating trans men and transmasculine people as deluded cis women.