#feminism includes nonbinary

[marshmellowtea]

wildest subset of people on this website are people who self identify as transfeminists who willfully forget basic principles of misogyny solely so they can hate on and minimize the struggles of transmascs

[donttouchtheneednoggle]

this just in: uplifting people just by virtue of their assigned gender at birth in the name of feminism found to be transphobic so now we're just gonna shit on those who CHOOSE to be male presenting bc it's a CHOICE right so we can tell them they're inherently inferior right guys??!!

bioessentialism found to be transphobic so we're jumping straight into gender essentialism which is totally cool as long as it's pretending to be feminism!!!!

[tiorx]

i feel like we should have a more concise word for "people who aren't cis men" at this point

[smilepilled]

if your (trans-)feminism inherently excludes any minority group on the basis that one of their immutable traits makes them inherently evil, you are not a transfeminist. you are LARPing as one, but you aren't doing jack shit that has to do with feminism.

this includes trans people, nonbinary individuals, trans guys and transmascs, trans gals and transfems, intersex people (with or without any trans identity), gnc individuals, black trans people, brown trans people, asian trans people, indigenous trans people— and any combination of these.

if you exclude any group of people from your transfeminism or activism, you are not an activist. you are trying to seem like a good person while clinging desperately to your own hateful, putrid ideals. get better and over yourself

[feralplantwife]

Hot take of the day I guess but Sabrina Carpenter is literally 26 years old. She's not a child star anymore. If she wants to have racy album covers and write songs about having sex with men she doesn't really like or respect, then that's her prerogative and people should shut the fuck up about it.

Nobody whines and cries and kicks up this much fuss when men show women in "compromising" positions or write songs about having sex with women they don't care about. They don't say anything at all. It's just another Thursday.

"It's not progressive"

"it's setting women back"

By doing what? Showing a woman in a sexual context? You can't have feminism or support the feminist movement without including female sexuality in that context. Picking and choosing which parts of feminism you're willing to stand up for and support is not feminism. It's moral policing, and there is absolutely no room for that behavior if you're actually fighting for equity.

Sabrina Carpenter is a woman who has sex with men, and she sings about it and makes album covers about it, and if you have a problem with that, I think you need to sit about and seriously consider why that is.

I see people arguing that it's subversive, and frankly I don't care whether it is or not. That's not the point. It shouldn't matter if it's subversive or not. I also see people saying that Sabrina Carpenter is the most heterosexual thing they've ever seen so they don't care, and again, yes you should! The branches of misogyny and homophobia grow from the exact same fucking roots. Feminist issues and queer issues can't be excluded from each other if they're to be fully understood.

Wishing all women and fems a very Horny On Main Is Fine And Good Even, and I for one look forward to dragging my aroace nonbinary brain through Sabrina's entire discography.

[walks-the-ages]

I don't know who needs to hear this, but regurgitating Radical Feminism talking point of

"Men are all Inherently Evil, Physically Superior, and Predatory to Women"

does not, in fact, do anything for Actual Feminism where the main talking point is

"We are all Human Beings and we're not Intrinsically Different based on the gender some random doctors decided on at birth"

and you're not doing anything for Queer Solidarity either when you go around proclaiming that all men, including trans men, are these evil oppressive monsters who have advantages in life based purely on their gender (even if they are trans men who are not out of the closet yet, apparently) , and I'm not sure why on earth the new crop of Trans-Inclusive Rad Fems think that being 'proud misandrists' is going to save them from being targeted by cis transphobes??? You can't win protection from transphobes by throwing your fellow trans community under the bus, and when you go around saying that all men are disgusting oppressive predators who have never done anything for the queer community ever and have never experienced any true oppression ever its like. ....

.... what the fuck is wrong with you?

Did you forget the AIDs crisis exists?

Did you forget the gay and bi men exist?

Did you forget that Black men exist??

The world's oppression does not begin and end with trans women, and if you're happy to throw the rest of the trans community under the bus so you can feel superior, I don't know who the heck you expect to have your back when you need help, because everyone else has already been run the fuck over, because you fucking threw them in the road because you somehow still think Respectability Politics is gonna save you instead of leaving your Exclusionist Bubble the community that ends up alone and isolated.

Trust me. Life is a lot more bearable and hopeful when you don't go around insisting an entire 50% of humanity is evil based on their gender. Try talking to your fellow trans men, trans mascs, nonbinary people and intersex people before you make another post about how """theyfabs have it so easy and trans men are inherently privalaged and evil because they're men and they shouldn't talk about reproductive health or the need for safe abortions because that's just speaking over women""" 🤦🤦🤦

[genderqueerdykes]

remember that lesbianism is diverse, not narrow. lesbians come in all genders, sexes and presentations. lesbians can be just as diverse as nonbinary people, trans people, gays, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, aromantics and other queers. lesbians are allowed to define their lesbianism, as they are the ones experiencing it. lesbianism is about liberation and freeing oneself and challenging binaries- including the "lesbian" and "not lesbian" binary! yes, lesbians truly are allowed to challenge the notion of what is or is not a lesbian! lesbians are allowed to push the boundaries of what lesbians "should" look and act like! lesbianism is not immune to gender non conformity that genuinely pushes the boundaries of what is "Acceptable" for a lesbian. the "lesbian - not lesbian" binary is not sacred and does not have to be upheld! if we are talking about smashing gender binaries, why are we reinforcing this one with concrete and rebar, as if the only pillar our community has to unite itself around?

"lesbian" does not mean the same copypasted butch - femme couple that a lot of people fantasize about. butch4butch and femme4femme lesbians get so under represented and talked over. we are so stuck on viewing lesbian couples one way and one way only due to rad feminist rhetoric being so common in lesbian spaces that it isolates and alienates an absurd amount of lesbians from interacting with their own community. there is so much more to it than just that. there is no one true way to be a lesbian. the more of us we are, the more we flourish. the more of us we exclude, we become isolated, jaded, misguided and most importantly: an echo chamber.

always remember that lesbian separatism, rad feminism & political lesbianism are to blame for why so many lesbians are so jaded, bitter, spiteful, and exclusive. paring down the lesbian community to only the most "acceptable" members is the core foundation of lesbian separatism. lesbian separatism came to exist specifically to kick butches on T, transmascs, transfem and lesbian trans women out of the lesbian community. it has way less to do with cis men than it has to do with trans people: it was always transphobia. this has always been motivated by transphobia. never forget this.

[the-muppet-joker]

Since you changed your DNI to include men, are you allowed to interact with your own blog?

...I did not think of that. Ok. So. New rules:

Men may only interact if they are invited by a female or nonbinary member of the Brotherhood (Sisterhood? Unsure. Workshop later.)

These men must also be passionate supporters of womankind.

I fit both of these criteria so I am allowed in the Brotherhood.

Problem solved. As a Dark Feminist, I am destroying the patriarchy one brutal kick with my trained leg muscles at a time. Today I flipped off a man I saw at the grocery store when he made eye contact with me. Then I chuckled darkly and said, "That was for the Women." The female shopper to my left burst into grateful tears and thanked me profusely for my work. So. It stands to reason that I am doing a lot more Feminism that many of you even realize... I work in the shadows........

[this-is-exorsexism]

There is no way to claim that binary trans people face specific forms of oppression that non-binary people do not without being exorsexist and reductive. Many people, binary trans people included, constantly forget that non-binary is a spectrum rather than a rigid category, meaning it would naturally include individuals with transition goals that intersect with those of binary trans people.

I’ve come across transmasculine non-binary people who want to go on T, get top surgery and pass as binary men because it would be gender affirming to them, all of which are steps many binary trans men need. They would likely face a significant chunk (if not all) of the exact same legal, social and medical discrimination binary trans men following the same path would face. The same can be said about transfeminine non-binary people who desire similar transition goals to binary trans women. 

Of course, not all non-binary folk who were AFAB and want to pass as men are transmasculine, just as not all of us who were AMAB and want to pass as women are transfeminine. And an obligatory none of these steps are needed to identify as any of the aforementioned labels. But these are just examples to show that the transition pathways and discrimination many non-binary people experience overlap directly with binary trans people. 

So, frankly, it would be ridiculous, or misinformed, at the very least to claim that non-binary people are exempt from issues faced by binary trans people. But I have seen this sentiment perpetuated in online trans spaces, including those that claim to be anti-transmed.

this is exorsexism.

i mean, heck, even a nonbinary person who was AFAB, does not medically transition or want to be perceived as male (and vice versa!) still experience antitransmasculinity or antitransfemininity respectively, just not the parts specific to medical transition or being visually perceived as men. but all nonbinary people who were AFAB, even nonbinary women, are framed as traitors to womanhood and feminism because they are "rejecting womanhood", "trying to escape misogyny" etc. a lot of people also think that all AFAB nonbinary people are "trying to be men" because if someone is not (strictly) female, they must be male. all nonbinary people who were AMAB, even nonbinary men, are seen as appropriating womanhood to an extent, as "trying to escape the responsibility of male privilege, as gender-transgressive. and again, people don't believe nonbinary people are real, so many think that all amab nonbinary people are "trying to be women". anyone who is seen as rejecting womanhood and/or trying to be male, or as rejecting manhood and/or trying to be female (or in many cases, both) will be affected by antitransmasculinity and antitransfemininity respectively, which is exorsexist in itself because most of it is due to structural misgendering of nonbinary people as some kind of trying to be binary.

[house-of-the-sun-project]

It all started when I was reading River God by Wilbur Smith, one of my all-time favorite books. At one point, the two main protagonists debate the gender of the god Hapi. One claims Hapi must be male, despite the “exaggerated” features, while the other, namely the female protagonist, insists that such a generous and nurturing deity must be a woman. In the end, Taita, the main character, concludes that as a deity, Hapi could be whatever they choose, or whatever their followers needed them to be.

In traditional Egyptian mythology, Hapi is portrayed as male, but with clearly feminized features: full breasts, a rounded belly, and a soft, nurturing expression. These features symbolize fertility, abundance, and the floods of the Nile. Egyptian art rarely strayed from idealized bodies, so when a figure like Hapi is given such a distinct form, it is often for a reason. Much like the dwarf god Bes, whose unique appearance was both symbolic and powerful.

But let's go back to Hapi now! That passage in River God stuck with me for years. So when I first began including queer representation in House of the Sun for Pride Month, Hapi became my nonbinary and intersex icon. Their dual nature, both male and female, yet identifying as neither, felt like the perfect way to express queerness through myth in my story.

In House of the Sun, Hapi uses they/them pronouns, and no one has ever really questioned it. It’s simply who they are, and that identity is honored, respected, and celebrated. Just as it should be!

[velvetvexations]

'your politics are incoherent' is a deeply funny thing to say to you because you are like. the most consistent person on this platform

i used to look at trans radical feminists' blogs and people in that sphere of politics because i care about the transfems in my life and was met with contradictory shit like

'trans men have male privilege under every circumstance'

'transphobes only see trans men as whiny girls'

so on and so forth. and the entire reason i stopped following that branch of 'radical transfeminism' is because i'm schizophrenic and base my understanding of the world on verifiable facts and logic that makes sense instead of logic that twists and twirls to get to a point that doesn't match. and the strain of trans radical feminism was not following any kind of logic that i could detect

whereas you, on the other hand, have nuanced opinions that actually track, such as:

- trans men can, under some circumstances, access conditional male privilege, but it is highly conditional and can be revoked at any time

- trans men and trans women do not have any meaningful amount of privilege over each other because both are seen as freaks of nature, just in different ways

- the amount of privilege a trans person has over other trans people depends on far more factors than which way they are transitioning

- trans women face things that trans men don't. but trans men face things trans women don't

you are also one of the only people i have seen make an actual effort to include nonbinary people and intersex people in your politics. every other transfem and trans woman i know has similar politics to you. people on this site are just mad that you're brave enough to voice controversial opinions and that you don't bend over backwards when they throw transmisogyny at you because you are stronger and braver than 90% of the people on this dumb ass site

The thing about conditional male privilege of trans men is that it occurs in the same way some stealth trans women might have access to privilege over a non-passing trans man, and if that sounds ridiculous and too contrived to be worth bringing up, well, yeah.

Thank you for the support, anon. "I tried following them but couldn't go along with it because having schizophrenia trained me to discern reality from unreality" is extremely funny.

[genderkoolaid]

tbh i understand the use of "tma" (transmisogny affected) as a gender-neutral term for people most directly impacted by transmisogny. i think the problem emerges from the fact that "misogyny" in general & who is affected by it have always been defined in a cissexist way. & also the assumption that everyone interacts with misogyny in the same way all the time (you are either affected by every aspect/form of misogyny, or none of them). & most of the criticisms of tma/tme are about how it 1. creates a strict binary of gender experience which fails to account for the nuances of, say, intersex and genderqueer experiences 2. even if it is not intended to be used like this, in practice gets used in ways which inevitably conflate the gender or sex binary with the tma/tme labels

i don't think these labels are inherently bad. I"ve used the phrase "people affected by misogyny" which is just a longer version of "misogyny affected." at least in spirit i think this is a good step away from focusing feminism on specific identities; that's actively good for trans men & nonbinary people in feminism because it allows us to both acknowledge our genders and be fully included in feminism instead of being cast as cowards/traitors for not exclusively/primarily identifying as women. but that is only true if the way you define misogyny is considerate of those groups... if not it ends up just being a euphemism treadmill where we never actually escape the exorsexism and cissexism that plagues all feminism rn. if you aren't committed to unlearning anti-transmasculinity and exorsexism (and intersexism) these flaws will exist for any discussion of any kind of misogyny

[genderqueerdykes]

is it bad that i hate when people take my posts about trans issues and make trans women the center of them. my posts always say “trans people” when i talk generally about the violence and transphobia because i mean that. all trans people, not only one kind. but every time the comments turn it into a discussion revolving around trans women.

i’m not against talking about specific demographics! but it’s very frustrating when people take trans men and non-binary people out of the picture when i intentionally included them by NOT specifying a specific gender of trans people.

it’s honestly very disappointing and disheartening that trans men aren’t included in any type of discussion when it comes to trans issues. at least not that i see, i don’t know.

additionally, when (mainly perisex cis)people claim their supposed allyship to trans people, they only talk about how they include trans women in their feminism and women’s spaces. no mention of trans men. and when we ARE talked about, it’s “i hate trans men because they’re just like cis men :)” or “no i don’t want trans men in WOMENS spaces because they’re men”.

i don’t know… maybe i’m too sensitive, but it’s something i don’t like. we should definitely bring awareness to trans women’s issues but not completely forget about the existence of trans men.

i think it's okay to feel that way. i don't care for when people do that to me, either. this discussion is long overdue and so few people want to have it, but this is an issue. yes, trans women are allowed to talk about our issues, we are. i'm not saying we should never speak. what i'm saying is we can't take posts that are made for everyone and make them about us and us alone.

we need to stop making conversations about transmasculine people about us. not all nonbinary people are transfeminine, other intersex, multigender, nonbinary, genderqueer, gendervast, gnc, etc people need a chance to speak. like i'm serious, it's okay to talk about one's own experience. but if it is explicitly to point out why people should not listen to other people when they are talking about their own issues, and that they should listen to you instead, you are controlling the narratives, and shifting the goalposts.

it's one thing to say "here's what i experience" but if someone takes your post and goes. hey actually. trans women have it the worst. they're the one leaving other people out of the picture in that situation. whenever you try to point this out on this website, people foam at the mouth to try to kill you and it's ridiculous. when, well, with so many people bringing it up:

it's an issue.

there's been a specific group of people who identify as transradfems and people who identify with their politics even if they don't know the name for it. they are pushing people to be quiet and not speak about their own experiences because somehow that silences trans women, as if we can only be about one type of queer person at once. it's gotten old. like can we seriously just have this conversation already and be done with?

i feel like i have to say the thing that most people are afraid of, because this conversation is way overdue.

can disenfranchised dysphoric trans women stop attacking men & mascs because you don't like being seen as one? can disenfranchised trans women who have been hurt by men stop attacking men who haven't hurt you?

enough. men & mascs are not your personal punching bag. manhood isn't what hurt you. being forced to be a man or masc is what hurt you. the general concept of manhood and men did not hurt you. let go. i understand it's painful to get misgendered and treated as a man for life. it sucks. you don't deserve that. no trans woman does. nobody deserves to be misgendered. you don't deserve to be dehumanized because people refuse to see you for who you are. it's okay to acknowledge that you're in pain. but you gotta let the fuck go of your irrational hatred, because it will never help you accept or love yourself

you will never experience true trans joy if you spend all of your time hating on other people. hate solves nothing. if that's the only thing you see, that's the only thing you feel. if hate has nowhere else to go, it rapidly turns inward. you will not be seen as a woman by more people if you attack men. you will not be accepted by cis radfems if you attack men and parrot their politics. this isn't helping you, or anyone else.

we need to break down these walls and talk to each other. trans women and trans men can have conversations about our experiences at the exact same time. conversations involve multiple points of input. if we're only allowing one type of person to speak and one type of person to speak only: that is a lecture. that is not a discussion. if you never listen or give other people a chance to speak, you are lecturing them.

[thehealingsystem]

like to argue "men and non-men" is a feminist idea on how the patriarchy categorizes people is to

ignore that this literally just originates from people trying to say "women and nonbinary people" in a somehow less transphobic way but still ends up being transphobic

ignore trans men in your feminism and how they fit into the picture. once again

like the concept itself, that patriarchy defines people as "men and other" is a basic idea, but the issue is also that it's basic. "men and non-men" is an underdeveloped idea that ignores lots of trans and intersex experiences, and lacks intersectionality. it might be feminism but it is not great feminism. and also people started using it just to genuinely categorize people this way. if you're gonna argue this as a feminist idea you need to be calling the "lesbian means non-men" crowd misogynists, for perpetuating the way patriarchy upholds manhood as default and everything else is "non" or "other." which I actually would agree with that to an extent

ngl still thinking about that mutual that put a post on my dash saying "men and non-men" is actually a great feminist praxis to base theory off of. I have genuinely have never seen it used that way it's literally only been used to be like "lesbian only space !!! women and nonbinary people I consider women are allowed in !!!"

[gatheringbones]

[“Trans women are extra. Trans femininity is too much. The first mistake of any trans-inclusive feminism is to confine itself by flattening what makes trans femininity and womanhood different from the generic standard. Championing the inclusion of trans women by saying they are indistinguishable from non-trans women is the product of a scarcity mindset. So, too, is claiming that trans femininity has a stable definition or that trans femininity fits neatly into the trans umbrella, or even the LGBT umbrella. Their assimilation into a whole is always a concession to the fear there isn’t enough to go around, whether it be money, power, language, or even gender. To make trans-feminist demands smaller in unifying through sameness with non-trans women, or with all trans or LGBT people, is a mistake.

In the face of misogyny and the long history of trans-feminization this book has investigated, trans-femininity’s positive value calls for a different accounting. Straight men, gay men, nonbinary people, and non-trans women not only share the world with trans women; they rely on trans femininity to distinguish their genders and sexualities, including through overlap. Gay men’s sexual cultures were forged out of the same historical dynamics and urban spaces as trans womanhood. Non-trans women have long shared experiences of downward mobility under marriage and capitalism with trans women, especially in sex work. Many non-trans women have been disqualified from womanhood on anti-Black or racist grounds in ways that make passing for “cisgender” as laughably irrelevant for them as it is for trans women. Straight men, too, depend on the validation of their desire for trans women’s femininity to consolidate their manhood.

Getting too close to trans femininity, despite its obvious allure, reminds people of their fundamental social interdependence with trans women and trans-feminized people, who have been consigned near to the bottom of most social hierarchies. To hate or dislike trans women, to exclude them, or to attack and scorn trans femininity are all anxious attempts to establish a boundary that violence itself admits never existed in the first place. The trans misogynist constantly confesses her, his, or their inability to escape being in the world with trans women and trans femininity by wishing they could enforce segregation. That’s why trans-misogynist violence is so often cruel or subservient to despotic authority. Trans misogyny must hide its fraudulence through overwhelming force. In truth, trans women are not a discrete, separate group of people. Trans femininity is produced out of the collective social body, and like all manifestations of gender, it cannot be isolated and removed from the whole. For those attempting to avoid that inconvenient truth, not much is left other than to accuse trans women of being exceptions: too feminine, too sexual, and too dangerous to live with everyone else.”]

jules gill-peterson, from a short history of trans misogyny, 2024

[jasper-pagan-witch]

Hi please ignore this ask and save it for a day when you’re in an emotional space to discuss it. I would wait and send it another time but I know I would forget 💚

How do you navigate being a nonbinary pagan when so many of the sources reinforce a gender binary? Between divine masculine/feminine and different crystals and herbs being assigned masculine or feminine I’ve been struggling with negative feelings surrounding being left out of the set standards and I was wondering if you have any advice!

I have both a funny answer and a serious answer for this.

The serious answer is that I grit my teeth and get through it for whatever scraps of information I can peel with a knife from the body of the text. Every book (or nearly all of them) has something to learn from, even if the work on the whole is garbage. Sometimes you must excise the useful bits and store them somewhere safer, somewhere where they can make sense on their own and develop a clearer meaning when put in the context of your practice. And the thing about carving out the information - whether that be from transcribing, actual cutting and pasting, or something else - is that you can alter the language to be clearer. You can remove the male/female connotations from active/passive. You can add more genders or feelings or remove them entirely. You can say "No, actually, this is not what we're doing here," and then proceed to not do it.

My particular brand of being nonbinary is that of being agender. I joke that I'm "none gender with left boy", but ultimately I have no particular gendered feelings about or in relation to myself. This means that, most of the time, I see nothing in relation to myself, because the type of nonbinary experiences focused on tend to lean more towards genderfluidity or being both man-and-woman-as-one (not to be confused with intersexed folks, that's something else). This is not a bad thing! I am glad that these experiences are being talked about! But with the exception of when I open my big mouth, I don't see a lot that I relate to.

We do get left out. That's part of the problem. And even when others try to include us, well... *glances at some of the queer witchcraft books I own* it doesn't always work out well outside of very particular paths. What I do, and what you are finding you have to do, is crack open the bones and force our way in regardless of whether we are meant to be there or not. Break a window and slip into the abandoned mall, raise a knife and bring it down in the flesh, take off running into the grass and yell at the top of your lungs - no matter how you do it, make room for yourself despite others not wanting you there. We're here, and they can't ignore it.

The funny answer is that I make a game out of getting mad at the lack of feminism in occult texts by men and the borderline-tradwife bullshit in Llewellyn-published witchcraft texts by women.

I don't know if any of this helped, but I hope it gave you something to chew on.

~Jasper