#just as criticizing the feminist movement is not inherently misogynistic

[mzminola]

This is not a perfect analogy but I am making it anyway to try to convey what being online has been like for me lately.

Seeing people say "Oh, Jews are fine, I just hate zionists!" is like seeing "Oh, women are fine, I just hate feminists!"

Zionism and feminism are both very broad socio-political movements that have changed focus over time, that ostensibly have some very basic core tenets but you really need to ask the specific person you're talking to how they personally define it to be sure.

Both have been subject to legitimate criticism, and hostile reactionary bullshit. Had waves, sub-movements, splinters, people with damn near opposite views sharing the term and people with seemingly identical views rejecting it.

You can give working, broad definitions like these:

Feminism is the belief that all people should be treated equally regardless of gender, with a focus on women's rights due to systemic oppression.

Zionism is the belief that all peoples have the right to self determination and safety, with a focus on Jewish people finding it in Israel.

You can also give different definitions! Many people give different definitions! Many people also hold these beliefs but use different names for them for various reasons.

There are self-described zionists who are jingoistic, racist, etc, and who attribute those attitudes to their zionism. Just as there are feminists who are misandrist, bio-essentialist, transphobic, homophobic, and so on, who attribute those attitudes to their feminism.

There are also incredibly selfless, compassionate activists working for positive change in the world who consider themselves zionists and feminists.

It has been very jarring to see people, who I respect, uncritically reblogging posts or headlines that use "zionists" as a stand in for "bad people", just as jarring as it would be to see them sharing things that use "feminists" that way. Especially when those posts contain easily debunked conspiracy theories that I know you'd have seen right through if the OP said "Jews" but because they said "zionists" you swallowed it whole.

I am not asking anyone to stop sharing important information, petitions, news articles, resources, and so on. I am asking you to slow down and stop spreading inflammatory language that paints a broad socio-political movement for Jewish self-determination as inherently bad. The same way I would ask you not to spread inflammatory language that paints gender equality & women's liberation as inherently bad.

If the information is important, please look for other, more neutrally worded posts. Or verify the links yourself and make a fresh post! There is no situation online in which the only way to share information must be to spread such language.

[autolenaphilia]

Why anti-kink puritanism is transmisogynistic

Anti-kink puritanism almost inevitably turns into transmisogyny. I’m talking here about the moral outrage, not about actual abuse, but directed towards expressions of “problematic“ kinks, i.e fictions, fantasies, or sexual roleplay between consenting adults such as fauxcest or consensual non-consent. I’m talking about the “kink-critical” people, the antishippers, self-proclaimed anti-pedophile crusaders, people who are largely TME.

Of course, the individuals driving this, at least when they aren’t being open terfy, deny any transmisogyny, and claim to not hate trans women. They also deny being conservatives and often claim feminist/progressive ideals. Yet the callout culture that they use to enforce their morality upon people inevitably almost target mainly transfems. It’s effectively transmisogynist, and the purpose of a system is what it does.

So why are anti-kink puritanism so transmisogynist? I think there are several reasons for this. Of course the most fundamental is that transmisogyny is extremely prevalent in our society, but that applies to pretty much everything humans do. There are additional reasons I think “kink-critical” people often turn out to be extremely transmisogynist in practice, even if they say “trans women are women.”

1. Their morality is driven by disgust. Kink-critical people often don’t have rational arguments, just moralistic outrage. And that’s in part because it’s hard to construct a rational ethical argument against consensual roleplay between adults, or fiction/fantasies, unless you start arguing for thought crimes or reject bodily autonomy and the fiction/reality distinction. And rational arguments aren’t the source of anti-kink people’s outrage anyway. It’s a feeling of disgust. They think people fetishizing fictional incest is disgusting, so it must be as bad as actual incest, because actual incest is disgusting.

And this leads them naturally to transmisogyny. Our transmisogynistic society conditions us to view trans women as disgusting, and specifically sexually disgusting. Trans women are simultaneously sexually fetishized and condemned as the ultimate perverts. The concept of autogynephilia exists to condemn transfemininity as inherently fetishistic, and especially to condemn sapphic trans women.

Kink-critical people aren’t exempt from this transmisogynistic conditioning. And when your entire system of morality is based around disgust at kinky perverts, it’s natural your ire will be drawn towards the people most easily viewed as disgusting perverts. Like even if you get disgusted by tme kinksters too, you will be biased towards targeting transfems, even if it’s not conscious. When your system of morality is primarily driven by disgust, your reactions will naturally be biased.

This process is possibly even accelerated by “trans women are women” queer and feminist communities. These groups may loudly proclaim that they accept trans women as women, but are dominated by tme people. And the only trans woman they really celebrate is a fictional idealized image of perfection, devoid of any opinions, feelings or sexuality that might offend them. This turns into a problem when actual flesh-and-blood transfems show up, with opinions that challenge them on their transmisogyny and dares to be sexual in ways they don’t approve of with weird kinks, and you know actual flaws because they are humans. And she is consequently exiled for not meeting their standards of perfection.

2. Their ideological taproots are 70s-era radical feminism. The ostensibly progressive/feminist movement against various kinks is not something that orginated on tumblr in the 2010s, but among US-american radfems in the 1970s. They are basically re-hashing arguments from the 1970s feminist sex wars, taken from feminists arguing bdsm (including lesbian kinksters) and porn was inherently misogynistic. Modern kink-critical people who are aware of this will literally quote Andrea Dworkin at you, and be consistent and condemn all forms of bdsm as fetishizing abuse, and not just cnc.

And as you are hopefully well-aware, radical feminism was and is extremely transmisogynistic. Dworkin wrote a blurb for The Transsexual Empire. And these radfems were basically recuperating conservatism with a feminist coat of paint in general, as I’ve discussed before. Janice Raymond and Mary Daly were basically spreading conservative catholic viewpoints as feminism.

Their transmisogyny and anti-kink views can’t really be divorced from each other, they were the product of the same feminist ideology that viewed misogyny as “sex-based oppression.”

And the evils of kink and the transsexual woman were explicitly conflated years before Ray Blanchard invented autogynephilia. Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire explicitly analyzes trans women as having pathological sado-masochistic traits. And if you read the other ur-terf Robin Morgan writing about masochistic and feminine men in her 1977 essay "The Politics of sado-masochism" as "woman-identified" and mimicing and mocking for fun real women's oppression, the transmisogyny is obvious. Radfems ever since have been very explicit about analysing transfemininity as a form of perverted misogynistic fetish, induced by pornography.

All this lingers in modern anti-kink puritan thinking, and their open disavowals of the transmisogyny that is deeply rooted in their arguments ring hollow. And they fall back on terf arguments once challenged. For example, whenever a transfem fights back against a callout and points out how its transmisogynistic, we are accused of “using our transfem identity as a shield against criticism.” This is a ludicrous argument, as in reality being transfem attracts criticism rather than shields us against it, and it especially attracts criticism of being a dangerous sexually perverted predator. It only makes sense if you accept the terf belief that transmisogyny isn’t real, and transfems have male privilege, and a privileged status in the community. Their denials of transmisogyny reveal their transmisogyny.

Let’s not forget the deeper roots in anti-sex conservatism. And whenever anti-kink people try to justify why reading the wrong kind of porn stories is bad, they often justify with a fascist-esque narrative of sexual degeneracy. By what I mean by that is that in such narratives rape and sexual abuse doesn’t happen of because systemic inequality in our society, it happens because of individual pathology, individual perverts, often queer. And doing evil kink roleplay and reading the bad kind of porn will twist your mind into becoming a pedophile or something.

3: They will inevitably end up making alliances with, or become, anti-sex conservatives.

The 70s era radfems ended up making alliances with conservatives to fight things they both agreed were evil, like porn and trans women. And it was the inevitable conclusion, because that’s how politics works in the real world. It was the easiest way to achieve their goals. If you decide porn or trans women are worse evils than actual misogyny, you will end up allying with actual misogynist conservatives, because misogynists have power in our patriarchal society. They have influence over the state. It’s the best and quickest way to support them using that power to make things worse for trans women, or censoring porn, and you’ll feel that your activism has meaning. It makes misogyny worse by empowering misogynistic conservatives, but it’s a matter of priorities and actually fighting misogyny is hard, while siding with the establishment is easy.

Modern day progressive anti-kink crusaders will inevitably make that same decision, for pretty much the same reason. It is inevitably on the side of the conservative crusade to remove “porn” from the internet and make vulnerable sex workers (many of which are transfem) lives harder, because that’s the easiest way for their politics to have an influence. They are inevitably on the side of the porn ban here on tumblr, even if it’s just using its automated moderation in their harassment campaigns.

They will create and join in on harassment campaigns to drive individual transfems from the internet for having weird kinks, and even if they openly disavow terfs, it will end up serving the goals of actual terfs. We have come full circle here. And this lead me to the final reason anti-kink people will turn into transmisogynists:

4: Transfems are some of the people callout culture can most easily hurt. The reason actual abuse is so prevalent in our society is because our society is unequal, and abuse is the inevitable result of a person having power over another person. It’s because women are subjugated in the patriarchy and men have power of them that the rape of women happens so frequently. The rape of children happens because children are so powerless, actual incestous sex abuse happens the family is an unequal institution. And there is little you can do to punish the individual perpetrators, because they have power. They are frequently men which lots of privilege.

If you were to set out as a kind of feminist vigilante and try to punish actual perpetrators of sexual abuse, it will almost certainly backfire on you, as they have the power to retaliate. So practically nobody actually does this.

What you can do instead is punish the most vulnerable people for minor or imaginary transgressions. And transfems are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They are often ostracized by transmisogyny from mainstream society, and consequently often rely on queer/feminist meatspace meetings and the internet to have some form of human contact. The purpose of callout campaigns is to exile transfems from these spaces as well, leaving them utterly alone and isolated, a condition that often leads to them committing suicide. And it’s easy to create an image of them as sexually abusive, because people are primed to view transfems as sexual predators.

These callouts doesn’t actually fight abuse, but are a form of abuse, and are often to provide cover for actual abusers who have too much power to be affected by it. As porpentine put it in hot allostatic load, a text that describes how transmisogynistic callout culture operates. “Punishment is not something that happens to bad people. It happens to those who cannot stop it from happening.”

Crusaders against evil kinks and fiction will thus inevitably turn towards doing callout witchhunts against random transfems. To quote porpentine again, in these communities “your status as a good feminist is dependent on constantly rooting out evil.” And Transfems are the people they can most easily root out. Painting a transfem as an abuser and driving them out of their communities is easy, especially compared to doing the hard work of actually fighting abusive systems. Destroying a trans woman is an easy way to feel you are doing the good work.

[marciabrady]

Idk if it's a generation thing with zoomers being clueless about what the Disney fandom was like before they got into it but I've seen so many people deny that anyone was ever presenting faux feminist critiques of the princesses, esp Walt's girls. But I don't even understand why they deny it, it's become a huge phenomenon you still see today and it takes only 5 seconds to use Google and find thousands of articles, memes, videos, comments, etc calling the girls weak and sexist. I feel it stems from these fans just not caring about the particular princesses who tend to be hated on and don't notice the unfair hate because their focus has always been on the popular, safe princesses (ie Mulan or Moana or whoever). If any of that makes sense lol. Just wondering your thoughts!

There's a very apt characterization of what occurred and it definitely comes down to a few things. The first being that a lot of these people didn't really have a strength of sentiment, one way or the other, for the original girls and just kind of assumed and inherited a lot of the misogynistic undercurrents in those contemporary, popular social criticisms that were parading around as feminism. I think a lot of those people pretended to have that passionate, spirited outlook on why Walt's girls were reductive somehow, while never really having had that opinion themselves. Most of those people didn't really spend much time consuming or thinking about their films, but did so because they felt it aligned themselves with being progressive or having a good social image.

There are some people that genuinely did seem to have seen those movies at least once and continued to carry that outlook, but it never really seems to be rooted in anything we see in the films themselves. Those people tend to just view every woman that was prominent prior to the 1960s with the same reductive paint-stroke and feel they were all victims of being socialized in a different time (which is so stupid lol if it weren't for the women that lived in that era, we never would have gotten the social movements we have today, nor the progress we have in each of them; but many people have told me "all woman born before the 1950s are inherently sexist because they're victims of what the system was like" which...). Then, there are people who- again- have seen these movies, but tend to condemn Walt's girls and pin them as a symbol of everything that was anti-feminist of that time, as opposed to actually judging them for the contents of their character. I'll never forget a book I bought at a used store called "Where the Girls Are," because it talked about female representation in the media and harked back to one of my favorite film titles. I was shocked when I read the book and it talked about how Cinderella in such shallow, mean-spirited terms. It brought up so many questions...the author writes that Cinderella had to be attractive, but wasn't allowed to be vain or spend a good deal of her film primping in front of mirrors- and I uploaded a good deal of screencaps to the contrary, but then it ran through my mind...if the author had been aware of that side of Cinderella, she probably would've condemned that too and called her materialistic or looks-obsessed. So it isn't really about what Cinderella herself did or was, but ultimately the author must've just held her up as an unfair expectation of what she, as a woman, was meant to live up to and made Cinderella a figure of all of her childhood frustration. That tends to be the case with a lot of boomers that grew up with Cinderella, and even kids today that write sympathetic backstories for blatantly abusive characters, like Anastasia; they emphasizing with her, despite all of her privilege and the atrocities she's committed, because she would be conventionally unattractive in our world and they project onto her what she must feel and what her lived experience would be, while discounting Cinderella- because she's conventionally attractive in our world- as being shallow or having privilege. It really is a fascinating study of how people view the world, which can be surmised through their view of the characters and how they react to them.

Which, and I have to make this note, but I'll truly never understand how Cinderella, the story about a female orphan who suffered abuse her entire life and continues to build a community and resources for herself so that she can escape and transcend her circumstances, has been painted through history to be a story about women being meek and staying in their place and being complacent and perpetuating so many patriarchal ideals about marrying rich and feminine beauty??? Especially when that wasn't Cinderella's goal, but the goal of the stepsisters who are always putting themselves in competition with Cinderella and are actively wanting to marry money and take a much greater delight in material riches.

[colorisbyshe]

I think part of the frustration with people being so uninformed by historical movements, especially 2nd wave feminism, is that they don’t get that political lesbianism as a movement was deeply lesbophobic too, and still realistically hurts lesbians today with the subconscious attitude that simply choosing not to date men or interact with men is what makes a lesbian. Which then is how you also get weirdos thinking lesbians should make space to give dating men a shot. And thinking lesbians, who are not attracted to men, are exactly the same as the rage bait terf folks harping about cutting men off from dating women.

Obviously this is. A facet of the larger problem with this ideology, but it’s frustrating how few people acknowledge how damaging it was for more than lesbian separatist reasons. Straight women (a significant amount of political lesbians) largely trying to take over lesbian spaces in the name of feminism was also deeply traumatic for the community too.

Absolutely, it was also a grossly biphobic movement AND.... misogynistic. Second wave feminism, separatist feminism, political lesbianism found a way to really attack all women on an ideological level, not even getting into how the entire era was also... deeply racist.

Political lesbianism was not for lesbians (especially when its leaders tried to define lesbian as just women who didn't date men, by choice or otherwise) or any other women attracted to women. It wasn't for anyone other than the most privileged of women and often led to just attacking more vulnerable, more marginalized women.

While the ideology is not identical, movements like 4B are not for the longterm benefit of most women. Or most marginalized people. (When you separate women as the only cause worth caring about, you leave out... every marginalized group. When you stop caring abut the rights of every marginalized group, you inevitably harm... the women of those groups.)

I'm not even going to claim to be an expert on any of these movements: I have done readings on those I am speaking about but haven't done extremely deep dies into them but part of why I haven't is because... the flaws ae on the surface level. You don't really have to get into the nitty gritty or nuance of these movements to realize that they are fundamentally flawed.

To have a movement that effectively says "Women's oppression is literally stored in the balls (ie the sex with men, which are presumed to be people with balls)" is... inherently stupid. You aren't more or less oppressed when you have sex with or date men. Men aren't getting their power from sex or romance with women. You aren't really harming or criticizing rape culture.

Likewise with political lesbianism, being perpetually single or fucking women doesn't free you from misogyny's impact or even necessarily empower you against it. "Act the right way towards men or you deserve what you get from them" isn't feminism. It is victim blaming, though.

These movements just sort of become... prescriptivist in the same way the systems they're supposedly rebelling against. "Act this way or you're the enemy." "Do this or you deserve what you get."

"Our gender MUST act this way" only ever hurts your gender.

Which is the flaw of most radical feminist movements. They exist to take power from men and then lord that same power over more vulnerable and/or more "deviant" women. Or any other more vulnerable group (like white radfems using white supremacy in tandem with their radical feminism).

There's nothing wrong with being a lesbian. There's nothing wrong with being bisexual or straight and choosing to not date or have sex with men. For whatever reason.

Turning that into political movement where you then try to dictate the right/wrong ways to have sex, date as some sort of moral code... that's where you are just recreating the harms you're supposedly against.

Like... on the most obvious level, these movements are extremely stupid and there's no other way to frame that. They’re not just morally bad, they make no fucking sense. Even if you don't understand the bioessentialism, the way certain identities are stripped of meaning or politicized even when they're innate, or whatever...

just on its face... how the fuck are women liberated by new terms dictating what sex and love they're allowed to have, what reproductive choices they're allowed to make? implying by having sex with someone gives them power is inherently and obviously harmful

we need to be so fucking real

[askfucktoyfelix]

Oh yeah could you hekp with some common sex negtuve talking points I’m well aware of many of them, but I’ve been thinking of writing some kind of parody? Satire? Thing critical of that sort of stuff so..but if you’re trying to parody it it’s good to get an good idea of what you’re parodying, so…I have some idea of the ideology of course, I live in a exteremky sex negative society, but it could still be helpful

The flavor of the talking points changes depending on the flavor of the sexneg. Religious people tend to say that sex is only between married people, often for only the purpose of procreation. Often times masturbation is shunned too. Basically there's a tendency to believe that anything that brings you pleasure outside of god is evil in some way. This is useful to them because the more shame people have, the more people need to beg eternally for their gods forgiveness. These types are particularly controlling of women's sexuality. Women are to be chaste, pure and obedient...and never desire sex, only desire to carry men's children to term. Porn addiction was basically invented by these people, who conveniently also have a ton of "treatment" programs that are intertwined with their churches. They fund almost all of the anti-sex and anti-porn movements, and they have A LOT of money to do that. They think sex workers are sinners but will act like sex workers are just victims needing saving to mask their extremely violent anti-sex worker policies. Another type is the reactionary pretending to be a feminist. They're put off by a lot of the religious sexneg's stuff, but they still hate sex so they appropriate leftist language and mental gymnastics their way into believing sex is misogynist. Ironically these types also tend to be really misogynist, and tend to shame women who like expressing sexuality just as badly as the religious people. In their ideology, sex is inseparable from the patriarchy and women who like sex are just experiencing "internalized misogyny" and using sex to gain favor with men...who are The Enemy of course. Some even claim that no woman can actually consent to have sex with a man because of the inherent power difference. These types are especially critical of kink...their shallow analysis being: people pretending to be violent is exactly as evil as actual violence. If a woman is submissive she's been brainwashed by the patriarchy, so she basically can't consent no matter what she says. If a woman is dominant, she's just catering to the fetishes of the submissive man, as she is completely incapable of any sexual agency of her own. These types don't usually fund anti-porn movements, but they do a lot of the worst propaganda work online. They tend to have a lot of other left-leaning politics which misleads people into believing this is a normal and rational left-wing position as well. They're often extremely transphobic, but even when they aren't they usually push for a lot of policies that further criminalization and violence against sex workers. (Again, the belief being women don't have agency, making all sex workers "trafficking victims") There are also some other miscellaneous anti-sex people that have most likely just experienced deep sexual trauma at some point in their lives...and wound up baking that into their politics. They're not capable of thinking directly about sex enough to be able to imagine it being healthy, and so they can't empathize with people for whom sexuality IS very healing. Yet they fixate on other people's sex lives WAY more than is healthy, in useless bids to convince happy kinky people that they are actually unhappy, or self harming. Their favorite thing to do is command people to go to therapy in an almost jeering way. "Get help!" is ironically a common mantra for these types to yell at people who are sex positive. There's really...a lot and I want to make a big post about common, normalized, sex negative habits in our culture at some point but idk when!

[bi-sapphics]

I think I used to follow your old blog, and I have some good faith questions: 1. What made you become more incluse IRT to LGBT discourse? 2. Do you consider "bi/mspec dyke" to be separate from "bi/mspec lesbian"? (I personally do think bi women can use butch/femme or reclaim dyke but consider these different and the latter concept is harmful) 3. Why are you against trans-friend radfems/gender criticals? (not radfem, I'm critical of them) 4. Do you consider Febfem problematic by proxy?

you mean p-c? yeah. fun fact: i actually plan to move again once i turn 18 in a few months.

anyways this post took me a while to write lmao, i wanted to make sure i got everything down perfectly, both so that it helps you and so that i can refer back to it in the future.

1. this post should answer your first question, though i think i forgot to include that the bi community has always been tied in solidarity with other queer communities that are often excluded (such as ace/aro + trans), and biphobia more often than not parallels harmful rhetoric to other ‘xphobias’ that lie outside of the LG(B). if exclusionists successfully eliminate the TQIA+, then no matter what they tell you or genuinely believe about themselves, they’re not gonna stop there. bisexuals are inevitably next, whether it’s right at the front of the line or somewhere down along it.

2. that same post mentions and explains why i don’t actively have anything against ‘mspec’/bi lesbians. i consider it a separate identity from ‘bi dyke’ because that’s how labels work, every label is a little different from another and definitions + experiences simply vary from person to person. however, functionally, no i don’t consider them any different. people can be and are bi lesbians for the exact same reason(s) that they can be and are bi dykes, and you can’t easily argue for or against one without inherently doing the same for the other. if you’re really, genuinely interested in my thoughts on this since you’re asking in good faith, i would personally recommend this post + this tag, which both explain how being an ‘mspec’ lesbian actually works. it’s also important to remember that ‘lesbian’ used to mean all wlw/nblw/sapphics and belonged to us too before it didn’t, which we didn’t actually have any say in. if you agree that the separatism movement was harmful to bisexual women, and that bisexual women also have the right to claim butch and femme for ourselves due to them having been our terms while we were considered lesbians, then everything falls apart and becomes inconsistent when you don’t agree with bi women also being lesbians if they so choose to be. it’s that simple, honestly.

3. because radfems and gender-criticals don’t support trans(-identified) people back. all trans people, be them transfem, transmasc, transneu, or anything else along the spectrum, are victims of this type of activism and always have been. i think it’s okay and acceptable to have basic views that align with women’s liberation and combatting worldwide misogynistic oppression without aligning with radfems directly, since they have an inherent connotation as their own separate group of activists that harm others just by being associated with the idea. whether or not you believe in trans rights and, by extension, whether or not you put a disclaimer that you believe in trans rights, you’re still signing up to hurt trans people by proclaiming yourself a radfem. that’s part of the contract, especially since many of them have recently admitted on twitter that the most important priority of feminism is taking down “gender ideology”, rather than most common feminist factors that address fighting in favor of women across the world. to be quite honest, i don’t have the means to strongly expand on exactly how trans activism is incompatible with radfem activism, but i’m sure blogs such as @genderkoolaid​ could hit the nail on the head with it for you!

4. if you haven’t already guessed following the third question, realistically yes i do. theoretically i think it shouldn’t, as to me it’s a nice-looking and nice-sounding label, as well as the fact being that there’s nothing wrong with being a bisexual woman seeking to date only other women ─ that’s what i do myself, which is exactly why i coined camellian! but, again, ‘febfem’ is a label that is inherently by nature tied with radical feminism and gender criticism (and any belief system or passive alliance related to them).  the community was created by and for those people (i’m positive this is one of the very first posts regarding the term - the one in the screenshot, anyway), which makes it harmful to position yourself with. i do like the flags though, and their creativity.

i hope this helps! i’m not even sure how much i trust some random anon in my inbox (lol lmao) but all of the information i shared is stuff i’ve posted about before, so i tried to be as honest and open as possible with it.

RADFEMS + GENCRITS DO NOT INTERACT. DO NOT COMMENT, DO NOT REBLOG, I WILL BLOCK AND NOT RESPOND. THIS IS A BOUNDARY THAT I EXPECT YOU TO BE ABLE TO RESPECT. LEAVE ME ALONE AND I WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE. I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU SO THERE’S NO NEED TO ENGAGE. JUST BLOCK ME FIRST AND MOVE ON. THANKS.

i don’t want to see lots of red-highlighted tumblr blogs in my mentions and i don’t have the energy to argue, so just fuck off for the love of god!

[jugaflugg]

Barbie Movie Review

You know the drill, below the line is spoiler-land!

Barbie is a fascinating film, and one that I think is a good start in educating people on modern feminist issues. Do I think it's without issue? Absolutely not. But it's a fun, feminine romp, and does well at putting forward some problems that have long-plagued women in the modern world. So, let's discuss.

We follow Barbie as she begins to experience more human issues, away from the idyllic utopia of Barbieland - these issues brought about by Gloria who, in the Real World, has been facing the struggles of motherhood.

Barbie travels to the Real World in an attempt to solve these issues, meeting Gloria and bringing her back to Barbieland in an attempt to release her from the stresses of modern womanhood. Gloria's relationship with her daughter, Sasha, is strained: Sasha doesn't understand her mother, rebuffing her attempts to connect.

I think that Sasha's role in the story is overlooked - she is a representative of the young radical feminist, using harsh language to get across her anger. She looks at her mother as someone who has given into the patriarchal machine, and only at the end of the film, when her mother expresses just how acutely she feels the weight of society's misogyny, does she begin to understand how united in womanhood they are.

Barbie struggles, as any woman does, to understand her place in the world - especially in the real world, where she is looked on as ornamental, exactly as the Kens are in her world. I do not think that Barbieland is meant to be understood as the perfect answer to the Real World - rather, it is meant to demonstrate how the world would look if the roles of men and women were reversed. At the end of the movie, it is noted that the Kens will someday have as much representation in governmental institutions as women have in the Real World - that is to say, a minute amount.

Barbieland is a radical way of perceiving how women may be served justice after lifetimes of existing in a misogynist society - but it is evident through Ken's subplot just how damaging any society without equality can be.

I enjoyed Ken (that is, Ryan Gosling's Stereotypical Ken) the most out of any other character in the movie. At first, I was a little disappointed that this was the case, however I am able to recognise that despite him being my favourite, that does not mean that I did not understand, or did not accept, the feminist perspective of the film.

Ken's story indicates just how poorly a patriarchal society cares about all of its aspects, including men who live in it. Ken clings to the power that the patriarchy gives him, but ultimately it cannot fulfil him any more than it can fulfil the women subjugated by it.

I think that, with a film so ardent in its feminist viewpoint, and certainly one that has been propagated as "a feminist movie", people are under the impression that every movement, every action taken by the characters, is in aid of this theme. However, I believe it is integral to our understanding of the film that we remember that each of the characters is their own person, not necessarily a part-player in advancing the feminist perspective.

Barbie chooses to become a human at the end of the film, as is her prerogative as an character with independent thought. Her choice can be perceived as inherently feminist: it is the action taken by a woman for her own benefit and her own happiness. She is not without fault, nor is she without mistakes - recognising this rounded out her character, and the role she has in modern society.

I think that the film was lacking in a few areas, particularly in its representation of intersectional feminism. Despite the presence of lesbian actress Kate McKinnon, and transgender actress Hari Nef, the film adhered very much to the binary of gender representation, as well as barely touching on the struggle of queer women. This same criticism can be held for the film's representation of minorities in general. The homogeny of the feminine experience in the film is not beneficial to educating viewers on the breadth of experience - but then, I suppose we can only take one step at a time.

I would also like to comment on the commercialisation of the film - or rather, on Mattel's advertising power over it. Undoubtedly, the film also functions as a large advertisement for Mattel's flagship product, buying into the ever-present terror of capitalism. Capitalism has forever functioned as a way of benefiting the rich, and often excludes minorities, as well as being inherently patriarchal. There is a certain dissonance between these facts in the film's presentation of the product - one that feels barely touched upon by an otherwise self-aware script. When it was done so, however - for example, the Mattel boardroom being comprised of entirely by men - it did so well.

This film is a great starting point for the feminist conversation, and whilst it does not say anything new, it does speak about some of these age-old issues a lot louder than previously done so by prominent media. I'm interested to see what is next from Greta Gerwig, who is fast becoming one of the most celebrated female directors - and a personal favourite.

And remember: You are Kenough.

[bulldyke-rider]

do you think the radfem drag "womanface" stuff is kind of stupid? im sorry to treat your askbox like a crystal ball or something but i tend to agree with a lot of the things you notice about radfem hypocrisy/general weirdness. like i understand the criticism that drag can def be misogynistic, i'm not really a consumer of that content anyways. but calling extremely bizarre demonstrations of femininity womanface is kind of antithetical to the idea that women aren't inherently hyperfeminine bimbos. how can you see something on like....rupauls and find it insulting on the basis that they're trying to look like you when women look nothing like that. it draws more attention to how silly that shit looks sometimes if anything.

Drag can for sure be misogynistic, but I also think it's the last thing any woman needs to give a fuck about. Like, I've started to not see the point in attacking every form of male gender non-conformity.

Now, don't misinterpret this, but I've started to not see the point of bashing trans stuff all the time too. I mean, specifically, situations where tras fight over language for important issues and then radfems just come right back arguing about language. Do y'all remember the "ways to break up a movement" or whatever thing where one of the points was incessantly fighting over language before problem solving? Both sides are doing that when you let the fight be about language. When an organization is talking about abortion or maybe even trying to do something about abortion, and they use a word to describe women that radfems disagree with, you don't need to jump to whine about wording every time. It's getting to the point where idk if y'all want control over your bodies or over words.

But then there are the women who would rather sit and argue about how they're still so feminist with their boyfriend than do fucking anything about the autonomy they're losing to him. Yeah, I'm glad you so carefully chose a boyfriend, but you're rapidly losing the ability to get away from him should you be wrong about him. Idk why you feel like you have time to defend being male obsessed.

[princessmuk]

Didn’t want to derail that last post but I think the treatment of trans men is heavily intertwined with the entire “men are trash” brand of feminism.

Like, yeah, the phrase is supposed to mean the patriarchy is trash. The bad men are trash. Good, feminist men should just understand that the phrase doesn’t apply to them. Oh, but, also, that they need to always keep it in mind and be aware of their privilege. In short, it’s there to remind them that as men, they are inherently bad.

Men are not inherently bad. Women are not inherently good. And as much as TERFs and even good feminists like to pretend men are just unfixable monsters, that does absolutely nothing to help feminism. It doesn’t make men want to do better, it makes them feel like shit and alienates them, AND gives them an excuse to not even attempt to change! It doesn’t help women who have been hurt by men, it just gives them something mean and quippy to say in a attempt to hurt men like they’ve been hurt.

YES, men as a group hold a privilege women do not. YES, the misogynistic society we live in benefits men, no matter if they themselves are misogynists or not. Men SHOULD be aware of their privilege. They SHOULD strive to do better. They SHOULD hold each other accountable, because often times men will only listen to other men.

But “men are trash”? No. Men are beautiful. Men are kind. Men are passionate. Men are devoted. Men are brave. Men are so many things, good and bad, and you can’t lump all men together and just say they’re bad. “Not all men” is stupid, too — YES all men, because all men benefit and all men are a part of the problem if they aren’t directly combating it — but it also speaks to how the feminist movement appears to men. They feel attacked. They feel worthless. And I don’t want to coddle them, we do have valid criticisms we need to air, and it might hurt them to hear it. But I have a major problem when men — cis, trans, whatever — internalize that they are worthless, or bad, or ugly, or unlovable.

I have a problem when trans men are alienated from their own community because they have some sort of privilege. News flash, trans people don’t just pick up the privileges of their gender. Trans men who don’t pass DEFINITELY don’t get male privilege bestowed upon them, and trans men who do can still get attacked, discriminated against, etc. etc. JUST LIKE TRANS WOMEN.

Men: I love you. I love you so much. Your opinions matter. Your experiences matter. Your struggles matter. Your emotions matter. There are times you need to step aside and give the floor to others. There are times you need to listen rather than speak. But you should not be silenced. You should not be painted as a monster just because of your gender. Don’t hate yourself for being a man. A real feminist would tell you that THAT is exactly the opposite of what this movement is trying to achieve.

Love yourself. Love your body. Love your gender. Love your community. Love men, love women, love whoever.

Men are good. Trans men are good.

[blossoming-witness]

I've said before I used to be pretty into trans activism, and when I started my journey into radical feminism I was at first very hesitant to be as, well, radical as other gender critical women.

I at first thought that the situations where trans activists acted in misogynistic ways were just anecdotical exceptions to a movement that wasn't inherently misogynistic. I used to think "it's not that trans activism is misogynistic, it's just THIS ONE person who is misogynistic". But, I just can't think that way anymore.

I still think that disphoric people are welcome into feminism, I still think that creative expressions of identity are important, including some forms of fashion and even make up, I would never forbid another person to express themselves whoever they see fit, I still think that disphoria is a real issue that should be addressed, I still think gender critical feminism isn't about violence against trans people, and I even agree that sex reassignment surgery shouldn't be denied to people who need it (although I do question whether or not it is the *only* solution for disphoria).

But I don't think anymore that the trans movement itself and the theories and ideologies it is based upon is free of misogyny. Actually, I think it has a bunch of misogynistic ideas so deeply entrenched that it is impossible to continue to defend this movement as parallel to feminism.

Because trans activists using misogynistic slurs against women is based on the idea that women can't suffer discrimination. Because a trans activists censoring a feminist that is talking about body related issues, like abortion, rape or menstruation, is based on the idea that women aren't oppressed. Because a trans activist insisting that the concept of "woman" is open to interpretation is based on the idea that women aren't a social class with consciousness of our own.

And these ideas are all supported by liberal feminism, queer theory, and postmodernism. All of these ideologies see womanhood as undefined, lacking of class consciousness, and free of oppression. Even though they all call themselves feminists. They all promote sexist and misogynistic views of women. Like reducing womanhood to femininity and denying the harm that sexist culture has on young women.

@lowkey-radical put it so well here:

And it's true! This movement is based on the idea that women are not oppressed!!! That's why it can't be considered an ally to the feminist movement, because it doesn't even consider our fight real!!!!!!

And I get really frustrated. Because a lot of people that really want to be feminist, or at least that want to be seen as feminist, don't understand this. They don't understand that rejecting trans activism as a feminist is not about dismissing the discrimination disphoric people face; we radfems reject trans activism because it rejected us first!!! Trans activism rejected feminism when it built it's whole theory on the idea that womanhood was an abstract feeling that could be "performed" by anyone.

I sometimes wish I could explain this to my liberal friends, to my "feminist" friends, but I really feel like I have no idea where to start.

[commajade]

[1/2] the thing i struggle w the most w homcha is the casual backdop of violence against women. without rly dealing w any of the consequences? miseon got assaulted at work. a man broke into hyejin's house to abduct and likely rape her... and we're just meant to think it's cute and romantic when she stays at dushik's house.... like no bitch that's traumatic af wtf

[2/2] it's nice that neither miseon nor hyejin seem too traumatized but if they were, that would be v real and v valid. sure hye jin was a little freaked but it was ultimately brushed off by the plot for the sake of ~ romance ~ and i'm like damn tho what about the trauma.... why include this casual violence against women if ur not gonna process it, where's the healing in that. and for the viewers - where's the escapism. where's the fantasy. idk it's just... choices :/

hmm. in my opinion this kind of plot being included in a healing drama is aware of the huge national conversation about sexual harassment and hidden camera exploitation that's been a big motivator for the skorean me too and feminist movements. the show is written primarily by women and it's more truthful to the situation to acknowledge that this kind of danger and violence is constant and genuine community work and togetherness is necessary for safety vs the don't ask don't tell city culture the show criticizes. you're right tho they don't take time to address those feelings at all ur right to be uncomfortable about it, it's a common and inherently misogynistic kdrama trope that subjects women to violence. tho it's not a casual backdrop it's a plot mechanism those r 2 different things.

and i think it's wrong to be like "where's the healing in that where's the fantasy where's the escapism". i've talked about this before but the show's definition of healing isn't a fantasy u can escape into, it's even cruel and inappropriate to see the stories that shows the sadness and humanity of how lower class rural korean people live and how they need each other to survive and say "ooh what a lovely fantasy i want to escape to here" and be upset they also have to deal with misogyny. the way the drama fits the healing genre of kmedia is that it gently confronts the audience with things like intimacy and community and labor and love. it's a reflection of reality but in the safe parameters of a romcom so u know the writer has the audience's best interest in mind and cares for its characters and want to show u something with them.

[shooting-stars-only]

i'm really not sure where to go about this now and i have a lot of friends who would fucking eviscerate me if they knew i was talking to a gender crit blog, but i need to say this to someone i know won't call me a transphobe for it. i'm not a radfem and i wouldn't call myself gender critical, i'm female & nonbinary and most of my close friends are trans. but i just really have to get this off my chest, i hope that's ok (please delete these if it isnt). disclaimers aside, 1/2 i guess

Ask series anon, I am finally able to respond to you!! Thank you for waiting :)

This answer is super long, so I'm going to tl;dr your asks so other readers can have context: anon has a nice trans woman friend and a misogynistic one; the misogynistic one has been verbally aggressive to anon and other women and is using gender identity to excuse it; anon is conflicted since many of her friends are like her nice trans friend.

(Please correct me if this is wrong, anon.)

ANYWAY. Here's the part where I answer.

All this sounds really difficult. I empathize with you. I'm going to call your friends Nice Friend and Jerk Friend in this response, and use the pronouns you used for clarity. I'm going to address your points first, and then wander off on a tangent second.

So, starting with Jerk Friend—this misogyny is something that I have seen over and over with trans-identified males (a term to group trans women and nonbinary men, abbreviated as TIMs). Upon transition, they realize they can get away with truly vile misogyny, because gender-affirming social circles (especially queer communities) refuse to address the loaded issue of their lifetime of male socialization which prevents them from having the same experiences as a natal (cis) woman. Whether this is because the community around the TIM genuinely believes their male socialization doesn't matter, or because they're afraid of backlash, or what, doesn't matter; what happens is that the TIM in question discovers they have a new weapon to wield against natal women, whom they hate. (I can elaborate on why this is, but this response is long enough already! Feel free to shoot me another ask if you want to know more.)

Basically, Jerk Friend follows a familiar pattern. Frankly, she would be an asshole regardless of transition, but transition has given her a tool with which to bludgeon women and not be called out. If she hadn't transitioned, would she have gotten away with calling you a bitch and being misogynistic to her girlfriend? If she were a natal woman or still identified as a man, would other people but you (and Nice Friend) have called her out for the way she's acting? My point here is that, whether or not she genuinely feels like a woman according to her definition, she is using her transition as an excuse for cruelty, and that is an inherently awful thing to do. Your reactions are normal and healthy, and I'm glad you set boundaries with her.

On a different topic, I'd like to address what you said in this ask:

like i don't want this to be a 'peak trans' moment for me. i love and respect my trans friends and 99% of them, no matter what they were assigned at birth, are incredibly respectful. i am not willing to sacrifice those friendships and relationships over this.

Between this and you calling Nice Friend your dearest friend, I think you're feeling guilty for having thoughts that you deem transphobic about Jerk Friend, and possibly about the effects of gender ideology in general. I 1000% know how you feel. I don't know if my perspective is an unpopular one on radblr or radfem circles in general, but as a gender critical feminist, I separate the overall trans rights movement and the harm it's causing from individual trans people. I used to ID as nonbinary—not sure if you knew—and sure, I knew some shitty people, but honestly? Most trans people I knew were trying to get by and live in a way that felt less terrible to them than the alternatives.

Now, there are plenty of critiques of people who do that, and I simultaneously agree with those critiques, and feel sympathy for trans people who are like those friends of mine, or like Nice Friend. I'm not sure if that's my libfem individualist background showing, hyperempathy, or what! But I cannot make myself hate individuals that have not caused direct harm to those around them. I don't think this disqualifies me from being gender critical or a radical-leaning feminist. I don't think that any of this makes me a bigot. And I don't think you are either.

Concerning your friend group: you might not lose all of them if you choose to voice your opinions (though I imagine those are still forming). I still have a couple friends from the local queer community (which I have since left). We hardly discuss politics anymore—we've all got shit in our lives we talk about instead—but I don't try to hide my opinions from them, and I think that if we *were* to discuss the subject of gender, none of them would drop me for my opinions. I don't know if that would have been true when we met 6 years ago, in our early-mid 20s, but frankly, all of us can see nuance now that we did not see (or maybe understand) at 22. I don't know how old you are or what your friends are like, but it's something to consider.

I reread this and it sounds like prevarication to me. Hopefully it doesn't come across that way. I find that my IRL behavior around gender ideology is a lot more complicated than when I reblog posts on tumblr! I find it hard to balance my ideals with the actions I take in reality. I have spoken to many women who *have* figured out that balance, and it usually involves becoming much more outspoken and brave than I am ready for right now. It is a process. It requires time. But as long as I continue moving forward and educating myself, I think it's okay to take some time.

Um, that paragraph may not be particularly relevant to you, but I'm going to leave it anyway. I think I addressed the main issues you brought up. And the resources I would recommend are the same ones as I gave to the other anon, along with maybe viewing @tra-receipts to see how Jerk Friend is an example of a trend and not a singular bad apple.

There's just one more thing I would like to ask you: why do you identify as nonbinary? If it is because you don't feel like a woman, then ask yourself, what is a woman supposed to feel like? If it's physical dysphoria, then what about your body makes you feel that way? Can you pinpoint any reason why?

I highly encourage you to consider this, to get a better understanding of yourself than anything else. Like I said, I used to ID as nonbinary, and I have some level of gender dysphoria (specifically related to reproductive health problems and a desperate hatred of the misogynistic objectification of my body; it took me literal years to figure that out). So I know something of where you're coming from.

To end this post: if you are on the younger side (like...22-23 and below maybe?), I'm going to post a request for advice from people that age for a different anon who is struggling with the same things you are. You can also shoot me another ask, or DM me, with your main blog if you want (I won't expose you) or with a throwaway blog.

Good luck, anon!

[rametarin]

TERFs are wrong. But, so are social constructionist Gender Theorists

You know it is not a question of one extreme or the other. As much as both like to think they are morally right and have “the science” on their side, they don’t. Both are god damned annoying, totalitarian, and are interpreting reality and what that means in order to browbeat and push others, both socially and legally, towards doing things based on what those mean.

Both are trying to control the parameters of all things based on the fundamentals by their interpretation of reality, not by the objective facts. Both are wrong.

TERFs are not wrong in that someone that is born with XY chromosomes and a standard male sex conforming body is male, and you need dysphoria in order to be trans. They are not wrong that your gender is not just a wily nily purely social construct.

They are, however, wrong about absolutely everything else regarding what those genders MEAN, where they’re derived from and why they were derived that way.

And the social constructionists aren’t wrong in that we should make exceptions to the biological rule for people with transgenderist disorders of the mind and brain. But, they are wrong in that so many are totalitarian. They do not want these exceptions to be exceptions, they want the very basis and fundamental understanding, how we define gender and sex, to change to be based not on biological empiricism, facts or truth, but by legal and social oughts and things they argue “should be held true else it demoralizes and oppresses a minority.”

There are not, “millions of genders.” There’s your basic standard assed functioning, and then there’s a disorder we otherwise can’t do anything with or about right now where it’d simply more healthy for everybody around if we let them live with the identity that is in their minds and body.

Furthermore, the nonbinarist movement needs to stop being such a cowardly little bitch and argue for itself outside the umbrella of trans rights, because it sits there demanding changes and exceptions and validations be made for it on the basis of bowing to trans rights, when it itself hasn’t stepped out of its parasitic sphere to fight for any on its own. Strategically using trans rights as a platform for both offensive and defensive purposes.

TERFs, up to now, have been virtually unchallengable because, “you must be a horrible right wing fundamentalist religious monster to oppose EQUALITY for WOMEN!” And they’ve just skirted on that since the 60s. Which was absolute hell trying to convince anybody that radical feminism was nonsense and harbored deep, authoritarian bends on takes with social ramifications. Yall were in their corner when they were talking about how, “society” needed to give women, exclusively, help to go to college because of past oppressions. But when someone tried to tell you they had weird obsessions with vaginas and using them as rubber stamps for whom gets special treatment and privileges and exceptions to defaults that make men do dirty work and women get clean pay? Deafening silence.

But the minute TERFs don’t want transwomen in their magical witch girl’s clubs, fucking with the cosmology? Ohho they’re visible now. You can see their bullshit now. They’re weirdos drawing female symbols and self-portraits with menstrual blood and making hacky poems about their uterus, now. They’re bad people now. You can actually see they weren’t, “being hyperbolic” or “just venting about the evil MEN around them” now. Hahahahaa. Hilarious.

TERFs are wrong. Point blank. But so are the social constructionist extremists and postmodernists behind the appropriated bandwagon of what calls itself the trans rights and nonbinarist rights movement in the west. The basis for which they’ve defined their norms is not one of reality, but “oughts” and “should be’s” and “must bes” and “or else”s. To the point where they invented a slur specifically to denounce those that do not share their view. “Bioessentialist.”

That makes as much sense as calling someone a dirty, “bioessentialist” because they say you need to be an elephant, to be an elephant. Yes, you do need the physical, biological characteristics to really BE that which you aspire to be. No, you don’t get to redefine what an elephant is to force the elephant to “identify” as an elephant so something that is not an elephant can also be an elephant.

If misgendering someone is triggering for a minority, it’s just as triggering when you deny someone’s sexuality or gender when they’re hetero and cis. And many are repulsed by the idea that the reason they’re compatible with their sex and gender conformation is because they, “made a choice.” For that matter, if you’re actually transgendered and not some bandwagoneering asshole, being trans isn’t a choice either. It’s a psychological and neurological impossibility to be anything else, not a lifestyle, not a hobby, not a “preferred state of mind.” Arguing anything else is arguing not for trans rights, but for psycho-social dominance in law.

And if you think misgendering someone that’s transgendered is bad, people that make up at MOST, 0.7% of the human species, and some say as few as 0.3% of the human species (people with cleft lips, born missing limbs and more are born more often) then what the FUCK do you think it is, redefining the identities and realities of 99.3% to 99.7% of the human animal, not to mention how every other animal works? (not counting some exceptions like clownfish.)

Gender is not, wholly, a social construct. It’s a derivative and pluto’s shadow from SEX. SEX is not psychological. Sex is not negotiable. Sex is biological and disease can make it express incorrectly or correctly to function as intended by natural selection. Gender is only a social construct in that some cultures have assigned thoughts and characteristics and responsibilities for people on the basis of said sexual role. That’s it.

But people that try to live purely in the psychological sphere or argue that sphere belongs in the dominant position for mankind try to argue it’s the only one that really matters, and while we’re at it, lets let the minority dictate what is normal and rational and good. So their believe gender as feelings supersedes sex as reality.

And why would they argue this? Because they’re, “just such big fans of trans rights?” No. Because they hate disparity and immutable, biological difference. And so want to use the arbitration of human law and culture to marginalize it and pretend it doesn’t exist- to where using technology to circumvent it and the penal system to enforce that view seems like a reasonable, moral thing to strive for. Trans rights for these people have always just been a nice coat of paint to put their real activism under.

And the biggest bitch of it all is, Radical Feminists and Trans Inclusive Radical Feminists and Social Constructionists all receive their marching orders from the same ideology. The same stupid take that says bugger reality, live in a communal fantasy and enforce everybody else to live in it, too. Else they’re a bad person. Else they’re a fascist. They merely differ in the rules and the fundamental parameters.

Know the difference between, “this person is bad and they should be shamed for their beliefs because they are bad,” and, “This person is bad because they’re sitting on a throne that I want to sit on as is rightfully mine.” TIRFs don’t hate TERFs because they’re wrong, they hate them because they’re in the middle of a power grab.

But we have the opportunity to end this “Critical Lens” shitshow forever. Both sides are exposed and showing their true colors as terrible ideologies and people. Both sides are showing their totalitarianism in the form of competitive propaganda and using the legal system to get their way based on past manipulations and exploitations they got from lying to a public that didn’t want to be misogynistic or prejudiced against the transgender.

All it takes is connecting the dots and understanding just how and why it’s not a matter of “bitter evil borderline-conservative Karens Vs. noble oppressed transgenders.”

TERFs are fucking NOT conservatives. They’re typically the same far-left assholes as the TIRFs. They differ ONLY in that they believe critical theory fucking STOPS at the immutable reality of biological sex, because they stand to lose dominance if it’s not immutable- so they demand it be CONSIDERED immutable. Their status as oppressed inherently, hinges on it.

So that’s it then. You’re left with no real heroes in this fight. But if you take anything away from what I’m telling you today, it’s that you can argue legally for trans rights. Just, on the basis as exception to the biological basis, as has been proven. Asterisks. Hyphens. Acknowledging the reality that the existence of the transgendered does not negate the reality of biological sex, nor those whose genders are a direct result of their biological sex as the norm.

It’s not bigotry to sexually discriminate to some degrees. When dealing with subjectives, it’s a matter of argument. When dealing with biological realities and imperatives, opinion is irrelevant to the self-evident realities, and interpretation matters less than the reality.

But to those that believe any discrimination based on physical differences or state is inherently wrong, just the idea of male and female being two different, named things, (”classes”, if you will) with different, “unequal” functions and capacity, fills them with rage.

Your moralism stops where nature begins. Period.

[bluebellravenbooks]

The Tombs of Atuan by Ursula K Le Guin

Life has been keeping me busy, so I'm slowly reading my way through the Earthsea series - and enjoying it quite a lot. The Tombs of Atuan is the second book in the cycle, following the events of A Wizard of Earthsea, and although I found the overall plot composition a bit weird, Le Guin's voice is just amazing. Honestly she could play her flute of words and I would march straight off into the sea.

My rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⛅ (slightly less enjoyable for me than the first one, but still a very solid read)

What's going on: Arha doesn't have a name or a life outside of the walls of the Tombs of Atuan. She is the eternally reborn priestess of dark forces who has been taught her place in the world since childhood. However even this place of ancient worship isn't free of life and politics outside its walls; soon enough Ahra's iron-clad picture of the universe starts wavering - and this conflict has to come to light when a familiar mage finds himself trapped in the Tombs.

What I liked:

As ever - impeccable voice, impeccable pacing

Quite a lot of exploration of how faith and politics intertwine

Just, Le Guin, okay

What I didn't like:

Some undertones seem quite misogynistic - sometimes, I thought, Ahra is just a weaker and more boring character than she could have been. However knowing who wrote these books, I'm stocking up with popcorn for the next installments...

The plot composition was a bit bizarre, like a Carl Larsson painting - from time to time the bits of story that you wouldn't quite expect would take center stage; sometimes it worked for me and sometimes it didn't

Overall thoughts: This is an excellent example of why context is important. If this book was written by a contemporary man, I would probably scoff. But knowing that it's a work of a woman who is yet to fully discover the feminist movement and women's writing, and also the woman who brought so much to the genre, I can let some things slide and enjoy the beautiful narrative voice. I think it's so important to keep this in mind, especially in the current culture of the cult of the unproblematic: critical thinking is important; context is important; and sometimes stories can give you a lot even though you may not agree with some characters or plotlines or narrative tones. You've got to think for yourself and analyse stuff, and tell yourself which things you're okay with and which things you're really not.

That said, The Tombs of Atuan is an extremely mild example. Sometimes I cringed a bit at the tone and at the portrayal of Ahra versus Ged, but inherently I didn't have a massive problem with it - on the spectrum of "to read or not to read" it's still a definitive yes. I just found myself thinking a lot about the issues of context and critical thinking while reading early Le Guin books, and I thought that hers is a very interesting example. Go find any of her later interviews on YouTube if you're interested and you'll know what I'm talking about: Le Guin is an absolute force of nature, and it's so clear that although her voice is already amazing, she will develop so much more in later books... I'm about to start The Farthest Shore and I'm very much looking forward to it.

[comrade-meow]

Sun Ra, the visionary and eccentric American composer, declared himself to be from Saturn. He was actually born in Alabama, but his claim to be an intergalactic traveller didn’t hurt anyone. Arguably such recreations are personal and sometimes, as was the case for Sun Ra, also political. It would’ve been quite clear to anyone that met Sun Ra that he was an earthling like the rest of us, and that his identity was inspired by his commitment to the black power movement.

It’s difficult to feel quite so magnanimous about comedian Eddie Izzard’s most recent announcement about his identity. On last Thursday’s Sky Arts programme Portrait Artist Of The Year the 58 year old comedian declared: “I’m genderfluid, I just want to be based in girl mode from now on.” Izzard then asked to be known as “she” or “her.”

Males become uberwomen when they play with the tools used to subjugate actual women

Izzard has long been a cross-dresser, and famously used to reject the idea that clothes ought to be gendered quipping, “they’re not women’s clothes, they’re mine.” But on Thursday the aging comedian appeared wearing a frock, some perky plastic boobs and pointy lace-up boots; apparently this was evidence of living in “girl mode.” As is now the form, Izzard was applauded for donning a “woman costume” and requesting female pronouns.

The idea of cultural appropriation, that is to say when someone from a privileged group adopts the attributes of a subordinated one, is beloved by the bien pensant. Guardian columns on the ethics of white people with dreadlocks are shared by those desperate to display their right-on credentials. And yet, curiously, when men appropriate the clothes that women are culturally expected to wear, they are celebrated as brave.

There is no fanfare for the women, in particular those of a certain age, who ditch hair dyes, make-up and heels. Arguably women who don’t care to sport the uncomfortable trappings of femininity could be deemed “non-binary” and yet they remain resolutely unfashionable. It seems men are able to break gender stereotypes by embracing them, the likes of Eddie Izzard strutting in heels are just so much more progressive than boring old vulva-owners in flat shoes.

Imagine, if you will, a world in which Katie Price was lauded as a liberal icon for having a boob job. Clearly, to undergo painful and unnecessary surgery Price must suffer from some form of body dysmorphia, and yet this marks her out for sneering ridicule by the very same voices that celebrated Caitlyn (nee Bruce) Jenner for having silicone implants. The new set of rules to accommodate men who identify as transgender are based on some fairly ancient misogynist tropes; males become uberwomen when they play with the tools used to subjugate actual women.

The reality of being a woman is reduced to a cutesy fantasy that can be slipped into like a bubble bath

Sun Ra did not adopt a new set of pronouns, nor were people who reminded him of his terrestrial origins at risk of arrest under hate crime legislation. It might seem mean-spirited not to use the preferred pronouns of someone who identifies as transgender, but it should be remembered pronouns do not refer to masculine or feminine behaviour, they demark sex. And furthermore, they are chosen by the person referring to the subject. Such linguistic choices are no longer a matter of free expression; the threat of legal action and social sanction are used to compel speech. Nonetheless, we are expected to believe that it is the gender fascists who are on the right-side of history.

Sun Ra chose an identity that was to him a logical extension of a political struggle, Izzard’s seems to be a stiletto-clad step towards reifying sexist stereotypes. The equation of femaleness with “girl mode” is revealing; the reality of being a woman is reduced to a cutesy fantasy that can be slipped into like a foaming bubble bath replete with flake. It is, as one might expect from a clueless man, a pornified and juvenile fantasy.

As a diminutive woman with a high-pitched voice, I would be taken more seriously if I had a “man mode.” Were changing “sex” as simple as new clothes and pronouns I would switch into “man mode” in order to walk home alone at night, my “man mode” would kick in every time I needed to assert myself. Indeed, with “man mode” deployed my right to express potentially offensive views in articles like this would be respected without the snide insinuation that I am cruel; an accusation frequently levelled at women who dare not to publicly care.

To most observers, probably even some of those who have publicly heaped him with praise, Izzard is a man with a fetish. Fetishes are compulsive, and they escalate; it is not unusual for men who get sexual gratification from cross-dressing to in due course declare themselves “transgender women.” Sexual arousal at the thought of oneself as a woman is what sexologist Professor Ray Blanchard calls “autogynephilia”, a term which he coined to describe “a male’s propensity to be erotically aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.”

In itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with having a fetish, whether one’s kicks are from wearing a gimp mask or a pair of lace-up high heels. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, who cares? The problem is when others are made unwilling bit players in the psychodrama of the individual with a fetish.

Men like Izzard are no more female than Sun Ra was from Saturn

With exquisite concision, feminist scholar Professor Sheila Jeffreys dubbed transgenderism a “men’s sexual rights movement.” She posits that it is women’s subordinate social status that some men with masochistic tendencies find arousing. Far from being a progressive step toward breaking down sexist stereotypes, the thrill men gain from identifying as the other sex, whether by being in “girl mode” or having surgery, depends upon men maintaining their dominant status in society. In essence, male transgenderism is invested in the erotization of women’s subordinate social position; it is sexism on steroids.

Today, the law and civil society facilitate the delusions of fetishists, punishing those who refuse to accept a sexual performance as evidence of an individual’s true and authentic self. But ultimately men like Izzard are no more female than Sun Ra was from Saturn.

[unpackingtransphobia]

What are some TERF terms we should be aware of?

A list of dog-whistles and other terms used by TERFs (and/or general transphobes):

Actual woman: Self-description by TERFs, because they think they get to decide who's an actual woman and who isn't

Adult human female: Either presented as a dictionary definition of "woman" or as a self-identification or self-description, this is used by transphobes in the apparent belief that it excludes trans women who are (in their minds) not real women, while also suggesting that trans people are not mature adults or somehow subhuman. Anyone who claims to be an "adult human female" is probably a TERF.

AFAB trans woman: (Not to be confused with AFAB or trans woman). An incoherent set of labels that is used to misgender trans men as women and trans women as men.

Agender as in atheist: A dog-whistle sometimes used by TERFs. Not to be confused with non-binary or non-malicious uses of agender.

🏁 (chequered flag emoji): The chequered/racing flag emoji is a dogwhistle often used by TERFs in their bios or names on Twitter, Tumblr, and other social media sites. It supposedly represents the idea that there are only two sexes, like a racing flag features only black and white checks. Emerged around the same time as "genderfree".

Clownfish: Clownfish are sequential hermaphrodites. This means that male-to-female sex changes are a natural part of their reproductive biology. Clownfish schools are lead by a female. When this female dies, the dominant male changes sex and takes her place, becoming a fertile (i.e. egg-producing) female. TERF references to clownfish are intended to mock and otherize trans women, suggesting that the idea humans can change sex is absurd because humans are not fish. (This, of course, conflates gender with sex, something TERFs do a lot.) It's also a reference to the TERF myth that trans women are out to "erase women.”

#DropTheT: A movement where its proponents argue dropping the 'T' from LGBTQ. This movement is not exclusively adopted by TERFs

#DropTheL: Since the evil gays and bisexuals didn't want to throw trans people out, some lesbians have proposed of going their own way separating themselves from the GBTQ community. Increasingly echoed unironically by trans people and other members of said community in response to the hostility and protectionism sometimes found among (cis) lesbians

#DropTheB: A (failed) attempt of the alt-right to promote intra-LGBT hatred by claiming that being bisexual is inherently transphobic.

Gender abolitionist: Not to be confused with non-binary. Often used as a dog whistle for TERFs. The reasoning is that gender is "just" a set of stereotypes, and that it shouldn't matter. Only sex assigned at birth should matter. Therefore it's fine to discriminate and stereotype based on the latter. Note that the expression is however sometimes used by well-meaning individuals as well

Gender Critical feminism: A euphemistic slang term invented by TERFs to refer to their hateful mindset. In fact, many TERFs falsely claim the term "TERF" is a misogynistic slur. This is not new or unique behavior, many white supremacists will insist that "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white" and insist on being called "race realist."

Genderfree: A new euphemism(April 2019) that TERFs have started using to describe themselves, implying that gender is a set of stereotypes, should not matter, and the only thing that matters is sex assigned at birth.

Goody [name]: "Goody" was the short form of "Goodwife," an archaic honorific used to address women in England, Scotland, and Colonial America up until the 18th century. It was roughly equivalent to the modern "Ms." or "Mrs." TERFs use it before their own surnames or account names (e.g., "Goody Rowling") as a reference to Goody Ann GloverWikipedia, who, in 1688, was hanged as a witch in Boston, the last person to suffer such a fate in the city. The insinuation is that TERFs are also innocent women being persecuted by a misogynists.

Handmaid/Handmaiden: A cisgender woman who supports transgender rights. Also used by SWERFs to describe women who support sex workers. Taken from the Margaret Atwood novel The Handmaid's Tale, in which handmaids are fertile women forced to bear children for powerful men in the Republic of Gilead, a patriarchal, totalitarian Christian theocracy. Ironically enough, Margaret Atwood likely qualifies as a "handmaid" in the eyes of TERFs, given that she acknowledges trans women are women, and believes they should be allowed in women's restrooms. She might also be labelled a "handmaid" by SWERFs for the apparent disdain for anti-porn feminists shown in the The Handmaid's Tale. In the novel, feminists campaign against porn because they view it as a threat to women, unwittingly helping lay the groundwork for a cultural shift that allows religious extremists to overthrow the U. S. government and turn the country into a brutal theocracy. It is also worth noting that the type of biological essentialism advocated by TERFs has historically lead to policies that oppress women (notably abortion and contraception bans) rather than the ostensibly feminist utopias they're seeking.

Kweer: A misspelling of queer used by TERFs and exclusionists to mock queer and non-binary people. A censored "q*eer" is also sometimes a signal that you're dealing with TERFs and exclusionists.

Lesbophobia: While discrimination and fear of lesbians do exist, this is more often used by TERFs as a dog-whistle against male-to-female transgender people, and it is also often used to gatekeep trans women from women's spaces.

Male-Exclusionary Radical Feminist / MERF: A TERF way to describe themselves as radical feminists. This also goes under the TERF mindset that "trans women are men”

Male violence: A transphobic dogwhistle that is used to include trans women as part of crimes that male criminals committed. Oddly, this excludes trans men, if they even remember that they exist.

Peak trans: The event or statement that, according to a TERF or other transphobic person, made them become such. An attempt was made by trans people to repurpose/steal the hashtag, but it did not gain significant traction in the long term.

Rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): Rapid onset gender dysphoria is, essentially, the idea that Tumblr, Reddit and similar sites are turning teens (especially girls) trans, teens that had not previously displayed any signs of being transgender. Naturally, this became a favourite among TERFs and other transphobes, who saw it as "proof" that the Trans Agenda™ is turning kids trans. All evidence for the existence of ROGD is one hilariously bad "study" which, among other things, didn't include said kids.

🟥 (red square emoji): Another dogwhistle used by TERFs in their bios and names on Twitter. It indicates that the user opposes letting trans women use women's washrooms and shelters, co-opting the "no means no" slogan used for decades by anti-rape campaigners.

🕸️ (spiderweb emoji): Another dogwhistle used by TERFs in their bios or names on Twitter, Tumblr, and other social media sites. It specifically indicates that the user is a member of Spinster.xyz, a "women-first social network" better understood as the TERF version of Gab.

(The spider emoji (🕷️) is not a TERF dogwhistle. It is used as a tribute to UK judge Brenda Hale, who once famously wore a very large spider brooch. However, since transphobia is endemic in the UK, there is significant overlap between those who use the two emojis.)

Terfragette: An attempt to reclaim the term TERF while pretending they're equivalent to the suffragettes who campaigned for votes for women. Used as self-identification by TERFs.

#TheyCallMeTerf: A new hashtag that spawned sometime in 2019 as a way for TERFs to fight back after being called out for being transphobic.

Trans agenda (or Queer agenda): According to TERFs and alt-righters, trans people have an agenda to: Confuse, trick, and make cis people uncomfortable. Invade cis people's bathrooms. Feminize men. Erase the meaning of "woman" by letting trans women use the term "woman". Turn cis lesbians into straight women and then replace lesbians with "fake" trans lesbians. Destroy lesbianism by pushing young AFAB individuals into calling themselves "non-binary", "trans men", "queer", "pansexual" instead of the classical "lesbian". Cause a genocide of homosexual people, by pressuring them to transition, like in Iran. Meanwhile, trans people's real agenda is to lower the suicide rate for trans people, and reduce gatekeeping.

Trans rights are men's rights: This term is used to smear transgender women and activists as men's rights activists. It is a play on the term "trans rights are human rights."

Trans Rights Activist (TRA): A transgender person that supports the mainstream transgender rights movement (as opposed to TERF/GC views). The name is made to echo the sexist "MRA" movement, in an attempt to draw an equivalence.

Womyn/Wombyn: Alternative spellings of "Woman" used to avoid ending the word with "-man". However, these are primarily used by TERFs. Because these terms are often associated with TERFs, the term Womxn was created