#like if you think am individual trans person does as much harm as - say - a transphobic political leader then you have drank their kool-aid

[uncanny-tranny]

The effort to turn every trans person into a political activist and place the burden of political leadership onto us is the same mindset as thinking trans lives are inherently political. Combating this means holding trans people to individual standards. If a trans person occupies political spaces, it should be because they have chosen to, not because people look at their transness and the "political implications" and it is all they can see

[ftmtftm]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being angry at a group with privilege bc anger is a natural reaction to adversity, but I don’t think deliberately cultivating hatred of a group you can be born into is going to be helpful or effective. Feel whatever you want, but separating the world into ontological good and evil won’t help because the world is made of people incentivized or de incentivized by systems they can help or harm to behave in certain ways. Like if a cis person says something transphobic that’s not cause cis e are like. Inherently evil. it’s cause they grew up in a transphobic world and never questioned it up until now and need to dismantle the parts of their worldview that caused the behavior

Yep!

Anon is forgetting that... Trans people also uphold transphobic cisnormative systems, because we live within the systems and sometimes the systems also benefit and prioritize certain trans experiences more than others. No one is immune from bigotry, bigotry isn't stored in the identity.

You can absolutely live your life in a way that prioritizes certain relationships with certain demographics - I mean, hell, I also make cultivating an environment full of other trans people a priority in my own life. But that doesn't mean I need to close myself off from cis people or encourage the idea that I am somehow so different from cis people that it's impossible for me to find community with them - especially with cis people who are also harmed by the exact same systems I am harmed by.

It is legitimately radfem rhetoric (which is a cousin to white supremacist and genocidal rhetoric) to go "I am safe with people like me who are oppressed like me and people who are not like me and who oppress me are the enemy". Individuals, especially every day individuals, are not icons for the systems that prioritize them. The average person does not actually hold as much systemic power that is being projected onto them here.

[radfae]

Many women, I think, resist feminism because it is an agony to be fully conscious of the brutal misogyny which permeates culture, society, and all personal relationships. It is as if our oppression were cast in lava eons ago and now it is granite, and each individual woman is buried inside the stone. Women try to survive inside the stone, buried in it. Women say, I like this stone, its weight is not too heavy for me. Women defend the stone by saying that it protects them from rain and wind and fire. Women say, all I have ever known is this stone, what is there without it? For some women, being buried in the stone is unbearable. They want to move freely. They exert all their strength to claw away at the hard rock that encases them. They rip their fingernails, bruise their fists, tear the skin on their hands until it is raw and bleeding. They rip their lips open on the rock, and break their teeth, and choke on the granite as it crumbles into their mouths. Many women die in this desperate, solitary battle against the stone.

andrea dworkin, our blood your decision is understandable. being a radfem is hard. ignorance is bliss, isn't it? from what you've sent, it sounds like you're just sick of the difficulties that come from being aware of the shit way that society treats us. it's everywhere, and you can't unlearn it. you can't stop being angry at all the injustice. all you can do is attempt to turn a blind eye, but we both know that that does more harm than good.

it's also important to remember that being gender critical is not synonymous with being conservative or anywhere on the right. a man-hating, pro-choice feminist is not a tool of the altright. quite the opposite, actually. just because some popular conservative men are known for being gender critical doesn't mean that we're the same.

it's also easy to be sympathetic toward trans people, even as a radfem; not everyone is, but i know i am. a lot of my close friends are trans-identified, and i'm even somewhat friendly toward TiMs (sometimes). and a lot of them truly do have good intentions, and are simply dysphoric people who don't know how else to cope. recognizing this and giving them patience and kindness doesn't mean that you have to de-radicalize yourself out of being a feminist.

and don't forget all of the community you've found. it's hard to be rejected for your beliefs, but the bond made between other women who get it and aren't afraid to talk about it is pretty much unbreakable. radical feminism completely changed the way i view myself and my body. it probably saved me from an eating disorder and damaging my body with binding, if i'm being completely honest. it's hard to be a feminist, yes, but it's hard to be a woman. and so many good things come out of recognizing your worth and allying yourself with other women.

i can't control what you decide to do, but you shouldn't allow yourself to be brainwashed out of your beliefs. i hope you find some peace of mind soon. you don't constantly have to be an activist and speaking out 24/7 to be a feminist, either. we're people, we need breaks. our minds aren't meant to be under constant stress. hope you see this message, i wish you only the best <3

[tabzsoda]

I saw you say you could ramble on forever about gender intricacies and I am BEGGING for you to do this about equius

FINALLY THE MOMENT IVE BEEN WAITING FOR

Why do I think Transfem or Transmasc could work for Equius? Well, first let's examine his Classpect - Heir of Void. This aspect gives us insights into his personality beyond what is shown in the comic itself. The void aspect is associated with infinite possibilities and secrecy. Like Roxy, another void player, Equius may see the potential within emptiness rather than focusing solely on its absence. However, the impact of the aspect depends on the individual wielding it. While it can be beneficial, it can also lead to indifference and apathy. How Equius lets the aspect affect him is crucial.

Now, let's consider his class, Heir. Heirs begin the game already influenced by their aspect, as we see with John, who is a free spirit. Equius, on the other hand, is extremely secretive about himself, concealing rather than being open and honest with his friends.

We can now interpret this in a literal sense, relating it to gender. In Alternia, the only physical characteristic distinguishing individuals on the male-female spectrum is breast tissue; otherwise, there isn't much to differentiate the two genders. Trolls possess both sets of reproductive organs, making it challenging to determine their sex. It's essentially arbitrary.

Let's delve into Equius further. In the comic, he is strongly tied to the caste system and adheres to specific roles. He believes trolls of lower castes are crass, but he contradicts himself by fraternizing with those beneath him, such as his Moirail Nepeta. This suggests that he may not fully agree with the system or its ideals. However, in a society that dictates how you think, it's instinctive to lean towards those ideals.

Equius also displays an obsession with strength and prowess. He admires muscular Hoofbeasts to an uncomfortable extent but also engages in Nepeta's playful antics, which contradicts his masculine ideals. Equius himself is exceptionally strong, but he is upset about it. He frequently builds robots just to destroy them due to his own strength. It's evident that he has a complex relationship with his own strength, contrary to his admiration for other strong beings. There are two ways to interpret this.

One interpretation is that he could be Transfem. The only time he drops the masculine persona is when he is with Nepeta, which makes sense as they are Moirails. While he demeans femininity around others, it can be seen as his reluctance to express that he enjoys femininity to some degree.

His explosive anger towards his own strength could be another indicator that he doesn't fully embrace his masculinity. To compensate and feel "normal," he surrounds himself with extreme levels of muscles and dominance, which can be seen as a coping mechanism. It's not uncommon for queer/trans individuals to deny aspects of themselves and conform to societal norms that are expected of them.

On the other hand, Equius could be viewed as Transmasc. He is more comfortable expressing femininity with Nepeta but outwardly presents himself as masculine. He may want to maintain the image of extreme masculinity, while still being able to feel like himself naturally with Nepeta. Being feminine with close friends doesn't diminish one's identity as a man. However, with other friends, he feels the need to uphold a certain identity.

Despite his frustration when his strength causes harm, he does enjoy being recognized for his strength and masculinity. Trans individuals often surround themselves with what makes them feel comfortable in order to be seen as their identified gender. In Equius' case, it can be seen as a way to cope with wanting to be perceived as masculine by his friends, which is a common experience for many transmasculine individuals.

This analysis of Equius allows us to gain a better understanding of him as a character, using the information provided in the comic. The void aspect represents infinite choices, as shown by Roxy's comfort and fluidity represented in fandom. Equius inherits the void, so we can explore the infinite possibilities within his character. There is a lot of potential in understanding him this way.

Ultimately, both sides of the argument can be valid, as each point can be interpreted as either FTM or MTF. The beauty of analyzing characters that the comic doesn't extensively explore is that we can draw insights based on what is already defined.

Just my thoughts and if you read through this clusterfuck of a post, thx for sticking around!

[sophieinwonderland]

as far as i can see , most people who coin the terms like "trans(x) - wants to be (x)" are trolls . the majority of the actual community defines things as "trans(x) - feels like they should or desires to be (x)" .

also , transgender people can be transgender just because they want to be . im transfem because i want to be a girl . saying "nobody whos transgender wants to be transgender ! we're all forced into it and its a constant struggle and we hate every second of it but we have to be because of dysphoria !!!" is a transmed argument . / nmay /

transids are mostly based on the same thing that being transgender is - how people perceive you doesnt line up with how you want to be perceived . this can be due to dysphoria , desire to be something different , whatever . none of it is "white people who want to be poc so they can say slurs" (the only person ive ever seen say that white people can say the n word was one troll) , none of it is "transneuro people just want trendy disorders bc they dont understand them" (as someone who isnt transneuro at all , transneuro understand the disorders i have way more than anti-transid people do) .

nobody whos transjob is saying "i am actually this job" , theyre just saying "i identify with having / want to have this job but i dont legally have it" . they arent impersonating anyone , no more than someone whos a factive is impersonating a real person or someone whos therian is impersonating an animal .

also , the most common arguments ive seen against a lot of transids is "ur transfashion ?? just get different clothes" , "ur transhaircolor ?? just dye ur hair" , etc . which like , besides the fact that it doesnt make something harmful because you can easily transition , a lot of people literally cant do that . for example , lolita fashion is super fucking expensive . ive seen literal shoes that cost more than all the clothes im wearing right now . do you (general you) think everyone can easily afford that ? no ! plus , a lot of people in the transid community are minors with abusive parents . do you (general you) think someone who controls every aspect of their child's life is just gonna let them go buy bright neon hair dye and dye their hair ? no !

(also theyre called transidentities or transids , or the transid community , transx / transX / trans-x is a term for transmed non-binary people coined years ago)

(sorry if this is entirely incoherent , i just woke up lol)

Transjob is an actual thing? I really thought I was picking a silly example that didn't exist to illustrate my point...

Okay, I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Like you say though, transID people aren't acting like they're literally the thing they're transitioning to. Because of this, a lot of anti-transID arguments don't really hold up. There's not much of a threat of people with transIDs invading spaces for people who have those conditions and spreading misinformation.

But this isn't the way that transgender people use the term. This is where this disconnect exists.

Compare a definition of transgender to one of transautism.

Transgender or Transexuality is an umbrella term for anyone whose internal experience of gender does not match the sex they were assigned at birth (normally based on first and secondary sex charateristics). Transgender people may experience discomfort or distress due to their gender not aligning with their sex, and therefore wish to transition to being the gender they identify with.

VS

It refers to someone who want to acquire autism/a form of autism. it can also be used to describe someone who feels they should acquire autism. Transautistic people are not necessarily allistics they can be autistic individuals who want another form of autism.

Do you see the difference?

Do you see how the words are being used in different ways?

The transgender position is "I am X because I experience being X internally." The transautistic position is "I am transX because I want/desire to be X."

Yes, many transgender people also want to be the gender they identify with. Being transgender isn't some horrible experience. But wanting/desiring to be that gender isn't treated as the prerequisite to being trans. Rather, the internal identity is.

Is this harmful? I don't really know.

But I do think it's worth noting that the definitions are being muddied by this type of use.

And this has been harmful to other communities in the past.

People who started using "kinning" to mean "really liking a character" have done a lot of damage to the Otherkin community, letting anti-kin groups push a narrative that Otherkin don't really identify as what they say they do at all, spreading misinformation to delegitimize the community.

Then again, people who were saying that transgender people just "want to be" a different gender are going to be saying that regardless, and I don't think this is likely to increase that.

[xxlovelynovaxx]

When you say that me accepting and even feeding my delusions that cause me no distress or dysfunction is "unhealthy" and "self-harm" (despite it not harming me and acceptance of them actually helping me heal from a lot of internalized hatred), and that I need to be (often forcibly) medicated and put in therapy*, what you're really saying is:

"I am uncomfortable with people being visibly and happily delusional. I think that gives me the right to remove people's autonomy and medically abuse them in order to make them more 'normal' and force a homogenous nondelusional experience on everyone. I think that not only are delusions an inherently disordered experience but that medical suppression is the only valid treatment even for distressing ones. I think that eradicating delusional people is okay."

And yes, this is eradication, full stop. It is not directly killing us (though for many of us, both the forced medical "treatment" and the rhetoric that it's not okay to be happy about being delusional DOES indirectly kill us), but it is eradication in the same way that saying "I don't want trans people to be killed, I just want them to not to transition" is. "Just be happy as a 'normal' (cis/nondelusional) person".

While there are happy non-transitioning trans people - just as there are delusional people happy to seek traditional medical treatment - it should be each individual's CHOICE and neither choice should be talked about as lesser or wrong. Though one is active (transition) and the other is passive (non-medicating/going to therapy), forcing medical treatment on someone is just as much a violation of autonomy as denying it.

It is also functionally no different from ABA being applied to autistic people, particularly ones who can't or don't mask/pass for neurotypical.

And in all cases, the people that say these things claim it's "for your own good" and that we are "incapable of making these decisions". That's massively condescending, and more importantly, infantilization. Y'know, the classic tool of bigots?

Note: I am saying the above AS AN AUTISTIC TRANS PERSON.

It is forced compliance to a standard of neurotypicality - in this case, nonpsychosis/nondelusionality. It is also an example of healthism - the conflation of health with morality and, in many cases, subsequent labeling of things that are neutral or positive health-wise as unhealthy to discourage them. (Even unhealthy things/choices are morally neutral, but the mislabeling of things is still an extension of healthism.)

This hurts ALL delusional people. It hurts those who don't want medication/therapy because they like their delusions. It hurts those who don't want medication/therapy because they are victims of medical abuse - which, by the way, the rates are extremely high for delusional people. It hurts those that don't want or can't take medication because of allergies/side effects/other health conditions. It hurts those that don't want to or can't do either for financial reasons. It hurts those who don't want to or can't do either due to other forms of bigotry.

And it hurts even those who want one or both because it contributes to the demonization of delusional people by giving them only conditional and partial acceptance on the basis of them managing to maintain a state (or veneer) of conformity to a standard of nondelusion.

Demanding delusional people pass as or be nondelusional for you to accept them means you don't accept them. Period. It means you accept people you believe to be or view as NONdelusional.

I am not anti-medication or therapy, for those who want it. See above: denial of care is just as much a violation of autonomy as forced medical "treatment". I strongly support the right of people to access treatment, and to have many of the access barriers in our current system (one of which is the demonization of certain disorders) torn down. I fight for the right to medicate and go to therapy just as ardently as the right to refuse it.

*Note: Throughout this post I speak of medication and therapy together as treatment to suppress delusions. This is not because I believe therapy will do so or even that medication is fully effective at such. This is because the people that say these things believe that medication is a magic normalization pill; and don't believe that only a BAD therapist would try and SUPPRESS delusions rather than giving you coping skills to RESPOND to them with.

There's more I could say about this topic, like:

that a lot of the idea of not "recovering" being harmful has to do with symptomology that can prevent someone from being as "productive" in capitalist society and therefore diminishes their worth as a capital-generator for companies/rich people

that there is a often component of colonialist white supremacy to this too - both in the deification of western medicine as the most advanced understanding of what constitutes a "disorder" and as a solution for those conditions - and in the focus on white western psychotic experiences to the exclusion of other culture's

in regard to the above point: like how in many other cultures, schizophrenic delusions and hallucinations in particular are often nondistressing and even comforting, and may also be integrated into the beliefs systems of those cultures

also in regards to that: how US racism (and possibly elsewhere as well) both strengthens and is strengthened by this - as black civil rights activists were frequently diagnosed with schizophrenia specifically in order to both turn the public against them and forcibly institutionalize them, especially when they refused treatment for their nonexistent delusions

subsequently, how racism was used to change in view of schizophrenia from primarily a hysteric (white) women's disorder to a "violent/dangerous" one for this reason, and how people of color and especially black people are far more likely to be labeled noncompliant and aggressive if they refuse treatment

the idea that consensual encouragement of delusions is not just harmful but abusive to the delusional person and the inherent removal of the delusional person's autonomy in stripping them of the ability to consent and how this is an extremely prevalent form of ableism that is used to deny everything from the sexuality of disabled people to recognition of their gender identity to their ability to refuse other medical care

in that same vein, the infantilization that leads to denial of physical medical care on the basis that their very real symptoms of another illness/condition are "all in their head", or mental healthcare on the basis that they can't differentiate between a delusion and other symptoms, especially in regards to delusion people with dissociative disorders, autism, and ADHD

just generally how this is just one of many ways delusional people of all kinds are demonized, some of which are subtle and some of which are obvious, but many of which are rooted in multiple forms of bigotry, many of which feed other forms of bigotry, and all of which are harmful and dangerous

As an added note, while I largely use psychosis and delusions interchangeably, delusions exist outside of psychosis (and psychosis exists outside of schizo-spec experiences). This is also because bigots often conflate the two.

[tagapagsalaysay]

Incomplete Irenator Gender Analysis Ramble

First things first. Irene is a trans woman and pretty much anyone on here knows this. The gender analysis isn't about his transition specifically, or proving reasons that he's trans. This is actually about gender roles that come up specifically about parenthood, traditional unit of the family and major medium of patriarchy and whatever. I was thinking about his whole approach in the usual but I felt like jokingly looking back on dumb shit so here we are.

I went with interpreting narrator's role in the equation as a parental figure, but it came from an odd place I think. I saw a while back someone trying to discredit romance between narrator and Stanley because narrator was a paternal figure to Stanley and well that's just dumb and I don't care. But the individual idea of narrator being a paternal figure not for spite is kind of interesting to continue on.

I'm gonna build a picture of mod nator first. Pre-gamergate, masculine voice leading masculine character. Would I say this is before he would examine his gender, yes probably. But my focus is on family dynamics. What advice is he giving, what expectations is he setting, etc. Even if he's not an actual canonical father, he operates as both a guardian figure and like, dad giving dad advice to another. The expectation of someone being as much of a macho hero as possible and then the other half where narrator manipulates him using his obligations as a father. Working for your family. Pleasing your wife. Being a strong man, which also translates into being a good father.

The male action hero archetype was shunned but for different reason. You simply needed to be rational and normal and wish for your own autonomy. It wasn't an outright reaction to harmful gender roles but it's close enough.

The dynamic doesn't change much in the first game either. The weight of the familial social structure is still there presented in altogether the same way. What next?

Tangent: Novelty. The mod/game was novel in terms of gameplay, but it can't be novel in everything. It was also Okay social commentary, but what I'm saying here is. Being ahead of its time isn't an objective goal to be self conscious about as a creator. It's something that depends on what is and isn't being discussed. And what people talk about is... subjective, more often than not. You can be ahead in terms of meta but lagging behind on everything else, things like gender. And that isn't a moral or creative failure. Nor an excuse.

Okay, from here, there are a lot of details I am missing. I wanted to bring up Irenator easing over nicely on the gender self-realization and presentation thing with no problem (Again, still outside the whole family discussion, and just personal interpretation) but realizing that he has yet to examine gender externally, especially through the familial structure. Or even just gender roles in general. Would he consider shifting his own moral guardian schtick as well?

And that comes in a lot on... untouchable ground. Yeah, like, I'm not playing the new game in a billion years at least, but it would have some of my answers. All I get is this picture of narrator examining not only Stanley's family and relationships but himself as well, and it would probably be so funny, but would also complete this entire analysis. But it's radioactive and I'm not touching a damn thing until I redeem myself in some arbitrary way.

I can only guess. Narrator envies Stanley's near-perfect (to cisheteropatriarchal standards) relationship, and somewhat realizes there could be unconventional ones outside a paternal and maternal figure. He then proceeds to either be envious or vain about it, because that's just what he does. The only context clues I get are personal hells.

I was wondering about this for the usual Irene distant backstory stuff, but it turned into an interesting exercise to practice for gender class. It's likely still shallow. But I also wanted to put an arc about Irene's journey of becoming pretty much a matriarch. Yes he's everyone's favorite funny grandma. But we would all like to hear how he's become one. And so it goes 💥

Man if you read all of that have a burger. I know there's probably also still the usual bias so feel free to fill me in on what your take is. -> 🍔

[ickie-vicky]

acknowledging that the binary exists AS a social construct, as an idea, is not agreeing with or following the binary. im not sure you understood me at all, maybe i wasnt clear enough. i am a gender abolitionist.

when i speak of gender i am using it as a general term to describe peoples connections to their identity and body on a more spiritual sense. it is abstract and undefined, because it is inherently subjective. everyone single person has a different felt sense of identity. the way we traditionally understand gender is through the lens of the binary, i do not. so i can understand your confusion. but yea, hopefully ive made it clearer, at least somewhat, that i do not believe in gender in a way that has anything to do with current understanding of that term.

and i understand that not everyone believes me, or even has been exposed to ideas like i have enough to form perspectives like this. so i am very understanding of people reinforcing the binary in some ways as a way to find deeper self meaning. there are obviously more outwardly harmful ways to do this, like feeding into toxic masculinity as a means of finding acceptance. but i dont prescribe to black and white thinking as much as possible (though, as an autistic person, that is my natural way of thinking). there is always nuance, there is grey. i even empathise with your position. its fuckin scary out here and of course you want to protect your interests as much as possible, and of those in similar circumstances. i respect that need, i dont respect the avenue youve chosen to meet it.

so while i dont believe in or agree with the gender binary and all that comes with it, im not going to demonise or vilify those that do, within reason.

so much of what you post makes it out like trans people ARE the enemy. that we are the ones doing active harm, not the ones being actively harmed. things like saying trans women are predators looking to enter womens spaces and erase them or assault them. OR that you believe we are defenseless, mentally ill little girls who have been lead astray and transed, forced to mutilate ourselves. like just such extreme and dehumanising beliefs. and its so sad because none of it is really actually logical or backed up by reason. its like, i agree with you up to a point and then we just veer sooo far into different extremes. the difference being mine advocates for collective and individual empowerment and health, while yours serves to create more divide and pain for all involved.

truly impressive display of doublethink that you repeatedly claim to be a gender abolitionist and also in support of transgender ideology

gender abolitionism good = transgender ideology bad

transgender ideology good = gender abolitionism bad

you simply can’t have both - these are by definition mutually exclusive beliefs. it doesn’t get more black and white than this. this isn’t a nuanced point

you are so invested in your ideology that you are engaging in doublethink - holding two contradictory beliefs and fighting tooth and nail to argue they align so you don’t have to admit you are wrong

do you really not see that?

how do you continue arguing with me with no shame when you are so clearly wrong?

you saying your ideology “advocates for collective and individual empowerment and health” and mine does not is laughably incorrect

the brutal truth: identifying as transgender is a self-centred and harmful ‘solution’ to a systemic societal problem.

you can’t abolish gender alone, so instead you buy into trans ideology for relief.

you don’t care/can’t acknowledge that this harms women because at least you’re alleviating your dysphoria - and that’s what matters to you.

your life has been hard so you must be right - your suffering proves your virtue. you are the hero and the underdog in your own story and everyone who criticises you is ‘harming’ you. any action you take to should be free from criticism because you are a good person just trying to alleviate your own pain.

you simply cannot bear to admit that your suffering does not exempt you from responsibility for causing harm in upholding patriarchy, which is what you are doing

because you have made your ideology a part of your identity you can’t even entertain criticism as it is now a personal attack against you

you call me saying this ‘vilifying’ trans people because it’s impossible for you to admit what you’re doing is wrong

gender is sexist. transgender ideology is sexist. you still haven’t refuted this.

you’re still not defining gender in a way that isn’t sexist - you’re just desperately trying to obfuscate and distance yourself from the truth which is gender = sexist stereotypes about womanly and manly feelings, behaviour, appearance, etc.

your ideology is inherently sexist

just be yourself and do whatever the fuck you want. you must not support the patriarchy by giving yourself a ‘gender identity’ to cope

this will be my last response as this is now arguing-with-a-conspiracy-theorist territory

i hope this has prompted others to genuinely reflect if not anon

[mdhwrites]

This might be a bit of a broad question, but what do you think makes a piece a media Timeless?

Is the sum of its parts or do you think its something in particular

So this is a subject that is both really simple and the answer sounds obvious but also is one of those things that can get lost in being pedantic. Worse yet, I feel like you might be asking this with the mindset of how most people talk about timeless works in that they're also commonly considered classics.

These two are not synonymous. The sum of somethings parts usually being greater than the whole while every individual piece is great is what commonly makes something a classic. Spiderverse, the first one and potentially the whole trilogy if it sticks its landing, will be considered classics because those movies are great in each part but combined together they're absolutely incredible.

This also makes what is a classic or not up for debate. If you don't like Shakespeare, you won't consider Romeo and Juliet a classic. You'll see it as over dramatic pedophilia potentially. (Not my opinion but I've seen more than one person like to do the modern 'criticism' angle towards Romeo and Juliet because of the ages of the two leads, not taking into account that that was probably pretty common back then.)

They're timeless however because of one thing: Audience resonance. Or, in other words, themes, and commonly how universal they are. This makes them much less up for debate.

After all, there are fantasy works that are timeless. That shouldn't be possible, right? I mean, they're set in medieval times for many works so the technology, social structure and even priorities of those characters shouldn't function for a modern society, right? Or hell, for something less bluntly absurd, just look at It's a Wonderful Life. The main character in that movie runs a successful business, has a wife and two kids and a full group of friends and allies and he's considered as just doing alright. To a modern millennial, that is an INSANE amount of wealth and could make the main character much less likable.

But to most, he truly is the good every man. Not just in that he does good things but in the doubting. In the jealousy. Mr. Bailey is by no means a perfect soul, but his soul does indeed shine bright. It's so easy to compare ourselves to others though. To always think we're not doing enough or not see the good we're putting into the world. The idea that all we make is mistakes and even if we're not literally worth more dead, we would do less harm if we were dead.

To any empathetic soul, this makes It's a Wonderful Life easily a timeless movie. It doesn't matter if what George Bailey faces is different from our modern context, what matters is that he is going through life, just like we all are.

This is actually something that a lot of bigots close a blind eye to. "How am I supposed to relate to this if the character is gay/black/a jew, trans, etc.? I'm not any of those things so it must be impossible for me to connect to this work!" They believe that racial background is everything. That you must have lived those experiences in order to connect with them.

We are all human though. No amount of time will ever change that what beats in our very beings is the same. How that manifests in personality, skin, gender, religion, etc. like that doesn't matter. We all face fear, anxiety, anger, joy, passion, etc. A common laborer with no ambitions can still connect to a mad scientist on the screen because the same feeling that scientist feels when he screams "IT'S ALIVE!" is the same joy of success and passion that that office worker gets when he puts down the last piece of a ten thousand piece jigsaw puzzle.

And while I say whether something is or isn't timeless isn't really up for debate, what is is whether it connects to you. I have two relatives who don't like It's a Wonderful Life. They are some of the most financially motivated and petty people I know, at least that are close to me. And neither are my brother shockingly enough, who loves the movie too.

I won't say that just because I try to have a universal outlook on things that I could connect to a story that is strictly that of an African American. I didn't have to live through the prejudice many of them face because of the color of my own skin. I can try my best to empathize though. That when they tell their stories and let their anger and frustration be known, I can try to connect with those emotions so I can better attempt to see the world through their eyes, if even briefly.

This is much of why while I write a lot of sapphic fiction, I root a lot of those elements in emotions like love, anxiety, fear, shame, etc. because I understand those emotions. I lack the specifics to make it resonate 100% with a sapphic reader, which is why I do recommend people check out proper sapphic writers if that's what they're wanting most of my works, but I can try to make it emotionally honest enough that they can see some part of themselves in the work.

Honestly, to me, what makes a work timeless actually makes anything that's emotionally earnest, and at least a 6 or7/10, hard NOT to be timeless. It also makes it damn near impossible for a work to have NO ONE who considers it timeless.

It just needs to be able to resonate and if you're worth anything as a writer, that resonance should simply be a part of your process. After all, your work should at least resonate with one person: You. Because if you don't enjoy it, why are you writing it?

[vampire-nyx]

Okay so, trans-x identities, here we go, I’m gonna go over the big three though I am aware there are more (I only recently like as in a day ago realized it genuinely is an entire umbrella of things) stuff will be under the cut bc I do wanna be detailed in my opinions and also not flood my follower’s dashes with this

Transage - I have the absolute most support for this out of any of the three, I even identify under it myself. It’s been known for a long time that age is a fluid experience and while numbers matter for things like laws, internal experience of age is much more than just what number of years you’ve lived. There are so many reasons one would have funky feelings about age and want to express that and it hurts nobody. The “issue” with transage comes from the people against it putting transage people in danger claiming them to be child abusers

Transabled - I’m a little less like, loudly supportive of this one but I feel that it has a lot to do with me just struggling to put into practice that belief of “things that hurt me might not be hurtful for other people, and everyone has the right to harm themselves and want to harm themselves even if I don’t understand it.” I’m just getting over the personal discomfort that someone could Want things that are disabling and harmful to me that I do not want, I believe that anyone should have the right to put a name to their internal experience, and I understand that there are many many reasons one would identify with this experience/term ranging from biid to plurality to just funky internal experience- I have alters that probably would even identify with the term because they’re disabled in headspace in a way we’re not bodily. I think the transabled community tends to have a problematic habit of romanticizing disability and talking down to bodily disabled people, but that’s an issue with individuals and community behavior, not an issue with an experience and term I would also like to say, in regards to the idea of transitioning to be disabled, I also support that. So long as you are not taking limited resources as a bodily abled person (free wheelchairs from charities and the like for disabled people who can’t afford them) there is no reason to tell someone not to use mobility aids or stim toys or anything, the more bodily abled people use these things the easier they are for bodily disabled people to access, so transabled people using them only helps everyone

Transrace/trace -  this is a hard onw for me. I would be such a huge hypocrite if I said NOW that people shouldn’t be able to describe their internal experience. So I DO think that the term is fine, it’s not harming anyone inherently to say “hey I feel this way” however, in regards to transitioning, there is no ethical way to transition from one race to another. No ifs ands or buts, there is no ethical method of transitioning races. It is so so important when you express your internal experience that you remember that you are still in a real, physical world with other real people and real consequences for your actions. Cultural appropriation is never okay, it’s not okay to claim cultures that are not your own bodily. But on the other hand, being trace does not make you Not Allowed to practice cultural appreciation and use cultural items and the like in a way that is respectful for your bodily race, I don’t like the way this site throws “cultural appropriation” around like you can’t even look at other cultures or you’re racist (taking a japanese name isn’t cultural appropriation, wearing braids if you have the proper hair type for them isn’t cultural appropriation, etc) So I believe that would be the extent that one could “present” as another race, in a way that is respectful for your bodily race and nothing more, you do not have claim to things you wouldn’t have claim to as your bodily race and that is important to remember.  This is also another one that I can understand why someone would use it, from plurality to neurodivergency to spirituality to whatever else, and if it weren’t for the term being extremely controversial, same with transabled I have alters that would probably use the term. This all feels along the same line as the “kinning as a different race” and “headmates of color” discourse, both of which I was on the side of the people kinning characters they didnt share races of and headmates of color expressing their race, so I don’t see why I would feel differently for a term that literally just helps legitimize and express things like that- overall it’s only the transitioning thing and the slippery slope into cultural appropriation that puts me off from wholeheartedly yelling my support for it

[circular-bircular]

yo wair what?? whats wrong with sophieinwonderland?? i mean i get like weird weird vibes from them but im usually just paranoid about these things i didn't know they were actually bad help

(feel free not to answer)

(btw im a singlet so like. i dont know much about plurality blogs i just kinda look at your posts cause theyre funky /lh /pos)

(Note: I believe SophieinWonderland uses she/her pronouns exclusively, so I'll be using those.)

This'll probably be one of the only ones of these I'll answer, and only because it became relevant again tonight. Sophie is always very polite, very kind, and does spread good information about Endogenic Plurality. She's actually said things I often agree with in the past.

She also:

Frequently ignores or speaks over the voices of those with DID/OSDD

Argues that DID/OSDD is not a trauma-based disorder and can form without trauma (which is something that those with DID/OSDD have had to fight against for years)

Has time and time again ignored the voices of both people of color and systems of color

Believes breaking boundaries (posting endogenic content in anti-endo tags despite those tags being used by those who are triggered by endogenic content, interacting with people who have endos DNI, etc) is absolutely fine, because "turnabout is fair play."

Believes that breaking those boundaries is the same thing as "enforcing" her boundaries.

Calls Anti-Endos a hate group (which is ignorant at best, and actively harmful at worse)

Agrees with TransID (Trans-Age, Trans-Abled, Trans-Race) individuals.

Minces words and twists them to avoid actual debate (such as derailing a post about how DID is trauma-based by focusing on the word "adversity" for over half the post and saying how it's not a good choice of words)

And, while there's more, I think one of the big things (syscourse wise, the racism has always been bad and I should've blocked ages ago) is the extremely heavy focus on diagnostic criteria. This is actually something I'm noticing more and more from the endogenic community. There's a heavy reliance on the DSM by many pro/endos to define DID/OSDD.

Most anti-endos I see acknowledge that the DSM is a horrible book, flawed in many ways, and needing improvement. It is a guide, not a cookbook - you can't use it as a checklist for "is this person a system or not." I do not fit the "textbook DID" that we see in most systems (I have "created" alters, I have near-perfect communication, I can control switches and have always been able to to some degree, etc etc) however I am still diagnosed, and anti-endos accept me because I am open about my experiences. Meanwhile, I get ran out of pro-endo spaces for these things, because "you can't be traumagenic if you experience that."

So seeing such a heavy focus from such a major pro/endo individual in syscourse on the DSM is... confusing and frustrating, to say the least.

Hope that helps, Anon!

[crunchyt0ast]

Hi, I saw your post about the whole Noah/Smosh thing and I’m just wondering what makes this topic so different from any of the other international crises that have been happening? I get being upset about Noah’s lack of response, he did like things on Twitter supporting Zionism, and I agree he really should take accountability for that (Zionism and Israel are different things and you can support Israel without supporting Zionism or their current political government, which is what his tweets that are still up are about, so I’m not including that).

But I doubt Smosh can just fire a contracted employee over their political views. They can’t force him to make a statement. They can’t put him in less videos because of this. They’ve said before they put whoever gets the most clicks in thumbnails and I’m guessing that’s not him lately, so they aren’t going to use him if they don’t have to. And publicly supporting Palestine while they employ someone who everyone believes is anti-Palestine looks really bad for them. Plus commenting on this genocide, but not commenting on any other war related topics also makes them look bad. As far as I know, they haven’t done anything about the war in Ukraine or Iran, they haven’t spoken up about what’s going in Haiti or Syria or Sudan or any other country. What’s happening in Palestine is horrible. And yes, it would be great if smosh said something in support of them. But it’s kind of unrealistic and hypocritical to expect them to on this one and not any of the others.

Yes they’ve talked about political views before, with their charity stream for blm, or their stop Asian hate skit, or some pro-trans/queer messages. But to me those were different. This is a religious conflict, which they’ve never talked about before, and it isn’t centred around the country they live in. Because with Palestine, anything they say will likely come across as misinformed. It’ll be misinterpreted by some and not good enough for others. If they start with Palestine, who’s to say they won’t get a huge amount of backlash for not saying anything about other conflicts?

I think everyone is being too quick to jump at smosh, when this matter is very delicate and they don’t really have the experience or enough knowledge to address it. And Noah’s situation should be treated separately, since I really don’t think there’s much they would be able to do on that matter. You can’t fire someone or put out a statement regarding an individual worker if it’s about their political views, that’s not how companies work. If they hired someone who voted republican, they can’t fire them for that. If they hired someone who is pro-life, they can’t fire them for that. Unless Noah is harming other workers or fans, there’s nothing they can do, and I think people are quick to forget that he’s an employee, not just their friend they sometimes ask to be in videos.

Anyway, sorry this was long. And you are free to stop watching and you don’t have to support them. I understand being frustrated that they’re being silent. But I do want to ask why this is the thing that has pushed you to that, as opposed to any other topic that they’ve been silent about.

I get everything you said here and it all make sense. Yes they typically stay silent on big things like this, and it does more harm than good however it’s more or less about Noah is what I don’t feel comfortable supporting. Smosh as a whole hasn’t objectively done anything wrong per se, but there are some people who work under Smosh like Noah who shows he’s a Zionist. I’m personally am not going to support a company that platforms a Zionist. I completely understand that he’s not going to fired for this because there is no point for Smosh to do so. It’s not really that they’ve been silent, it’s because a few members have shown their support for genocide, not to say that silence can’t hurt either.

[8-evil-annoying-catboys]

idk i can like understand being defensive of your lived experience but that post (with like less than 500 notes iirc so maybe most of my followers haven’t seen it) going on a rant about afab trans women felt incredibly mean-spirited and close-minded to me.

there are intersex trans women who were afab and who look very much like any average perisex trans woman does in terms of secondary sex characteristics because of their intersex condition. do they deserve to be spoken to like that? there are bigender people who are only able to reckon with identifying as same gender as cis people who were the same coercively assigned sex at birth as us by recontextualising their gender as being equally trans on both sides, and who actively recognise that our experience of that gender is inherently different from binary trans people of that gender specifically because we don’t want to speak over them, and many of us also look undeniably trans regardless of what gender we are being perceived as because of HRT or surgery, or again, in some cases, an intersex condition. do we deserve to be spoken to like that?

if an individual who self-identifies as a trans woman and was afab is speaking over trans women who were amab, making false equivalencies between their experiences, or claiming they know more about being a trans woman than trans women who were amab, then that should definitely be addressed, but the majority of trans people i’ve seen whose gender aligns in some way with the sex they were coercively assigned at birth, who still self-identify as trans, trip over themselves to justify it every time they bring it up, and hammer in the point that they don’t intend to speak over or falsely equate their experiences to those of the trans people who people usually think of when you say “trans woman” or “trans man” (BECAUSE YES. AMAB TRANS MEN EXIST TOO. BTW). when i talk about my experience (rarely), and whenever i see a trans person talk about this kind of experience (also rarely), it has ALWAYS been followed by “i understand that my experience is different from most other trans [women/men] and i do not intend to speak for the majority or speak over them when i talk about my experiences, i identify this way because i’m [intersex/bigender/multigender/more than one of the above] and this is the only way i can properly make sense of my experience.” and the existence of both trans women who were afab and trans men who were amab, regardless of their reasoning for that identification or their behavior towards other trans people, will not change cis people’s perception of trans people as a whole, not significantly anyway. there just aren’t that many trans people who fit into either of those categories for that to be true. sometimes you have to give people the benefit of the doubt, even if you have a good reason to see the phrase “afab trans woman” or “amab trans man” and get your hackles up.

also… i did notice the fact that that post specifically was only about afab trans women, even though amab trans men also exist and there is probably a similar proportion of them who act in a way that is harmful to or speaks over trans men who were afab, as the proportion of afab trans women who act in a way that is harmful to or speaks over trans women who were amab. i can’t help but wonder if OP of that post simply thinks amab trans men don’t exist, or that there’s some inherent quality about being a trans woman that can be appropriated, but no quality about being a trans man that can be appropriated, and therefore afab trans women are inherently a problem while amab trans men are not inherently a problem or even are never a problem. i’m sure i’ll never know, but i wonder.

anyway. afab trans women and amab trans men, i love us. we are entitled to self-identify the way we do in good faith, and i believe that most of us are doing so in good faith. i know i am, at least, and i would always rather give the benefit of the doubt to someone and later find out they don’t deserve it, rather than to lash out immediately at someone only to find out they have a good reason for acting or identifying the way they do.

and i want everyone who ISN’T an afab trans woman or amab trans man and is reading this to know that i agonised over whether or not to include myself and my experiences in this post, but i need to be authentic even when it’s scary. i am part of the demographic i described wherein i’m bigender, and the only way i was able to come to terms with being a woman was by, first of all going on testosterone and getting top surgery, and then recognising that i am a woman and i am also inherently different from cis women—i have much more in common with the average trans woman than the average cis woman. not to mention the fact that thanks to the way i dress and act and look, i am most commonly read as a trans woman, and have experienced transmisogyny from multiple angles in my actual ass real life. i haven’t tried saying “actually i have a pussy” because that is incredibly dehumanising, and even if i did, do you think anyone would believe that coming from a girl with a deep voice, square jaw, patchy facial hair, and even an adams apple if you look closely enough? yeah, i don’t think so either.

i am lucky to have been spared from experiencing physical violence as a result, but every day i am more scared of the very real possibility of that happening to me. so let me say: please think before you speak. the experience of amab trans women is inherently different from mine, but most of that, in my case, is related to what gives us gender euphoria and dysphoria, and like, my literal genitals. i would’ve never been comfortable identifying as a woman if i’d never gone on T, even if i had survived high school, which i doubt would’ve happened in that scenario too but that’s besides the point. amab trans women usually define their experiences by the ways in which they transition away from maleness or manhood/boyhood and into womanhood, but my experience is defined by how i transitioned away from femaleness and into a comfortable form of femininity, and through that comfortable form of femininity, i found a way to settle into womanhood that was comfortable for me, without leaving my hard-earned manhood behind. i am not alone in this, and i know that because the only reason i discovered that i was allowed to identify this way was by reading about the experiences of two fellow bigender trans people, one who is openly intersex and the other who is not openly intersex but also has not claimed to be perisex as far as i know. i am not intersex, but i implore you to consider intersex, and also genderqueer/multigender perspectives before making posts generalising entire groups of trans people whose identities don’t make sense to you. it’s very likely that if someone describes their gender in a way that you think is contradictory, the reason they describe themselves that way is because they are intersex or multigender. we are allowed to take up space in the trans community, and you should not talk over us any more than we should talk over you (which is not at all… obviously.)

[misterellyott]

I keep going back over and over the conversation I had with my sister and I think I finally have a way to put what I was trying to say to her in a way that would make her understand I'm not trying to control her choices.

She kept telling me I was trying to control her. Which, is far from the truth.

I don't want to control what she does, think or say. She is free to be whoever she wants to be, think however she wants, etc.

What I was trying to say is, I have a boundary that I do not want to be around people who have a certain ideology.

I'm not telling her she can't think that way, I'm simply stating that for my own safety and my own mental health, I do not want to be around people who think that way.

She is free to believe that trans folk shouldn't exist. She is free to believe that god made people the way they are and that they shouldn't change that.

Just as I am free to make the choice not to surround myself with people who think like that.

As I do believe that everyone is made exactly as they were intended to be made, cis, trans, intersex, etc.

And to surround myself with people who tell me they support me, but also have the mentality that they believe that my 'life style' is a 'choice', would be mentally harmful to me.

Family or not, blood related or not, I don't want to around people who think like that, as I know that they only support my 'choice', support me, because I am family. And that rubs me the wrong way.

When you actively make efforts towards suppressing trans folk, but then look at me and say 'oh but not you'. That doesn't mean that my suppression is lessened in any way, as they are voting or donating their time and money to the active suppression of trans individuals, and thus me.

Because if trans rights are taken away, like in the state of Florida, it would/does effect me. I had to move out of Idaho, a state I had lived in for 20 years, because of the negative effects of trans suppression.

Simply slapping on the, 'but I support you' doesn't take the very real consequences that are happening because of their active support/belief in the anti-trans movement away.

While I know now how better to explain what I was trying to say, it doesn't change the fact that a relationship with her would never be possible.

I've grown up, and I've set hard boundaries for myself. Boundaries I had denied myself all my life because I was so brain washed into the 'family means everything' bs.

While my family now does truly and wholeheartedly mean everything to me, and by family I mean my wife and son. They are my chosen individuals. They are people in whom support me, love me and I can support and love them with no 'but's attached.

Now, if my son hits 18 and decides that for his own good that he wants to go no contact with me, I would first try to figure out why and see if we can't fix things and if not, then I would respect that. As he would be free to make those choices and if that was what was best for him, then I would be crushed and hurt and sad, but I would respect that because it would be what he feels is best for him.

I truly believe that having boundaries with people, family and all, is healthy and very much needed in today's world. But, I believe some people will just never be able to fully grasp or understand why a person would want to have boundaries even if that means giving up their families.

Now that I have spoken to my sister and have seen her reactions to my boundaries, I feel much better. I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Because her reaction, though brought on by a place of hurt, was uncalled for and horribly rude and I'm much better off not having someone in my life who is going to do their best to try to hurt me simply because something I did well over three years ago hurt their feelings and they never even said anything about it until now.

Communication is just that. It's a place to talk things out and try to come to an understanding and if one can't be reached than you go your separate ways. It is not a place to berate, name call, and belittle someone simply because you are upset/hurt by something they have said or done. That is why you have the conversation. To air out your hurt and frustrations and say, hey this thing hurt me. And give the person a fair chance to explain their side.

Either way, what's done is done.

I've found my happy place, with my family and though I would like to expand that, I want to do so with individuals who will up lift us, not bring us down. And, it's finally time to let go of the past and look forward to our future.

Which my wife and I are working hard to make it the best one we can for ourselves and our son.

[femsolid]

Can you please explain why you don't believe that trans women are women? I consider myself a feminist and a strong ally of the LGBTQ+ community, and my own sibling is nonbinary. I make it a point to be accepting, compassionate, and sympathetic towards every identity I come across because doing otherwise has made me miserable. Not because I received hate for not doing so (I got none, at all), but because I began to realize over time that excluding certain people in lieu of supporting others began to feel wrong and counterproductive. I took a look and saw that people who bullied me, who made me feel like an other for my appearance and mannerisms and despised my existence, would do the same to trans women, trans men, nonbinary people, and every other kind of person they didn't understand. When I interacted with people and groups that didn't believe there was more than two genders was such an overlap, such a rabbithole, that went down the path that hated feminism and by extension LGBTQ+.

What I'm trying to say is, even though I can't lie and say I DON'T despise terfs or that I DON'T hate transphobia, I want to be able to understand what leaves you stuck in an ideology I had to grow out of in middle school in order to be happier.

This little juvenile introspection seems to imply that I am a bigot who doesn't like people because they are different than me. I suppose that's what men told you about the big bad wolf they call "terfs". What does the F in terf mean? Ah, yes, Feminist. I am a feminist. So even as you label me a "terf" you are acknowledging that I am a feminist. Therefore my political views on gender ideology have nothing to do with hating people who are different and everything to do with feminism. I do not agree with being called a terf, by the way, but apparently only men get to choose their "identities".

If you're a feminist yourself, why do you think it's okay for people to chant "kill all terfs" knowing that it means that a certain group of feminists must be executed? Does that not seem a tiny bit strange to you? You don't see radical feminists chanting "kill all liberal feminists" do you? Despite the fact that we find you incredibly harmful and hardly feminist. I don't despise you and I don't want you dead. Yet you claim to be the "compassionate" and "accepting" one.

I don't think you know much about feminism and that's fair enough you're still young. But mostly, feminism was kept far away from your generation and instead you learned that people were walking "identities" making free personal choices that should never be questionned. Goddess forbid you try to change things or have a political opinion. Individualism over class consciousness.

So here you are. You saw a post I made about trans activists bullying a feminist to the breaking point (hospitalization), you came here to defend them and have the audacity to claim that you are against bullying? Every day the men you call women send rape threats to women, describe in graphic details how they want to rip us appart, attack us during feminist protests against male violence, send us pornographic pictures, call us misogynistic slurs and you think you've got the moral high ground for siding with these monsters? Do you never even question it? Do you not realize that the minute you step out of line they'll treat you the same? Or do you simply turn a blind eye on all of this and truly believe that the men who claim to be women are precious little victims oppressed by the evil feminazis who just hate them because they wear dresses? How stupid do you think we are? We know what bullying feels like, we know what discrimination is, how could we not? We are women after all. Mostly lesbian, bisexual, gender non conforming women. And survivors of prostitution, pornography, domestic abuse, rape, ableism, racism, child abuse and so on. We are women and we are feminists. We know full well what persecution feels like.

Now I can tell you why I think men are not women:

I do not believe in this religious dichotomy between mind and body. I don't think there's your body, and then there's your real self, separated from the real tangible world. We are bodies. Your body is you. Everything you feel, everything you think, everything you know is through your body. That's all that you have, that's all that you are and that's a perfectly acceptable situation. I don't believe in gendered minds, gendered souls, gendered spirits, gendered essences or gendered identities. I don't think that if you believe hard enough that you are of the opposite sex you then become it. I think gender ideology is a spiritual belief. I think it requires blind faith on your part to see a man, to know it's a man and yet to claim it's a woman, though you're most likely pretending to believe it just to spare his feelings, which are oh so easily hurt, conveniently.

I think the idea that white american men are martyrs oppressed by women is a joke. I think they promote sexist stereotypes and are misogynists. I don't think "I always knew I was a girl because even as a child I would play with dolls and make-up" is a progressive statement, do you? I think it's appalling that if you tell a man to stop the mansplaining, to stop oppressing women, to get the hell out of women's space, all he has to do is claim not to be a man, to be "non binary" and then you have to shut your mouth and crawl under his feet. I think well meaning people, who want to appear progressive and compassionate, are feeding an anti-feminist backlash. I think in reality you are encouraging gender non conforming people to feel like we are inadequate and need to change our bodies in order to fit in or we'll kill ourselves, according to you. I think you are encouraging an obsession with image and perfection. I think you are pushing kids into the arms of unscrupulous cosmetic surgeons, therapists and doctors who will gladly fuck up their health and diagnose them as trans for not conforming to sexist stereotypes or for being homosexuals. I think you should listen to destransitioners. I think you should stop letting men define womanhood, define feminism, define what you should think or say, define which women are good and which women are witches that must be hunted down. I think if men applaud your feminism then there is a problem. I think if white american men become the center of your activism while women and girls are massacred for their sex worldwide then your activism is worthless.

[girlboss-enthusiast]

So. I do not consider myself a radfem, TERF, or even gender critical. However, I have found myself reading more and more posts from radfem accounts and I'm kinda scared to say that they're starting to make more and more sense. I still support trans people, and most of the ones i've met are genuinely nice people that I wish all the best. However. I just dont buy into everything thats being said about including trans women who have not fully transitioned (aka no top/bottom surgery, hormones, etc) into women's bathrooms. I also feel ( no matter how hard I try to deny it) uncomfortable at the thought of letting trans women into lesbian bars, because its unfair of women to show forced attraction to literally the thing they came out as not being attracted to? Does that even make sense? Im confused, and worried, because most of my friends are very liberal an dsome are even trans/non binary/genderfluid, etc. and as much as I love all of them, Im starting to see things that they say or do that just dint make sense and seem suprisingly like something the media has brainwashed them into believeing and parroting. Idk what Im looking for- clarification? Reassurance? A horrible response so I can go back to hating/being against "TERFS"? Sorry for the long ask.

Hi anon! You totally make sense. I think a lot of us now-radfems had very similar experiences. I know I did. I'm no feminist scholar, but I do like to babble talk, so I'm going to give you my perspective on your points, then some resources that might help you sort things out. Though I am not going to touch on philosophical topics like postmodernism because frankly, I'm still trying to understand the details myself. First off, I know trans people whom I like very much. I used to ID as nonbinary and I still have friends from that time period who are pro-gender ideology. I don't think that individual trans people are evil, want to cause harm, or are intrinsically bad people. Personally, I approach the groups of trans people and Trans Rights Activists differently; the former are regular people who are doing their best to survive, like most of us. The latter are the ones pushing gender ideology into the public view and causing harm. There is considerable overlap, but this Venn diagram is not a perfect circle, so I'm being super-specific for clarity's sake. That said, some radfems genuinely do hate all trans people. I disagree with this, as you can see*. I take what I semi-jokingly call the JKR stance on trans people: many of them are good people. All of them deserve absolutely every human right that anyone else does, including respect, protection from violence, and medical care.

But there's a phrase that goes something like "Your rights end where they encroach on mine." That is my problem with gender ideology and the trans rights movement. Because proponents of gender ideology and trans rights are genuinely encroaching on women's rights. They are passing legislation to change the definitions of gender to be based on feelings and not on any material facts, suppressing not just the needs but the very existence of biological women.

Your mentions of lesbian bars and women's bathrooms are perfect examples—the eradication of female-only spaces in favor of ones inclusive of trans women (males). Women are being de-centered from womanhood—not just in feminism, or even in pop culture, but in the experience of being female and having female-specific needs.

So, why is this problematic? (PS: I don't know how much radical feminist theory you've read, so apologies if you're already familiar with these concepts.)

Female socialization begins at birth (or even before) and consists mainly of the stereotypes of femininity being enforced on us. This socialization is part of what creates the divide between the oppressed and the oppressor. This is true regardless of when a person transitions; they could be ten years old and still will have lived 10 years being treated as their biological sex. This is just true, regardless of what anyone says. There are countless studies on the topic, which I can link you if you want, and of course, our own lived experiences—females are treated differently (worse) than males, and it starts before girls can even consciously realize it.

So, females want our own spaces because we have different needs, for physical and social reasons, and those are being taken away. This isn't ~TERF hysteria~ but objectively true; males want into our space and society is being convinced to let them have it. In fact, I would argue that trans-identified males (trans women) are appropriating oppression for claiming discrimination when females assert boundaries for their female-only spaces. It is fundamentally unfair to expect women to drop their boundaries to be inclusive of males.

(oh god I wrote literal paragraphs on other material consequences of gender ideology...not posting them now but can share if you're interested)

You also mention that you've noticed your friends parroting ideas that don't make sense to you. You aren't imagining that or making things up. The words "groupthink" and "thoughtcrimes" get thrown around a lot, but I really do believe there is a massive suppression of critical thinking or even asking good-faith questions about gender ideology going on—you are socially punished for questioning it, and sometimes legally punished. So, many of your friends may be supporting TRAs out of fear. Some might feel powerful because of it and be happy where they are. Some might buy into gender ideology because it's easier than thinking critically about these concepts—I was like that for a long time. Gender ideology gave me nice, pat rationalizations about my own feelings, cushioned me from acknowledging the reality of misogyny, and provided a friend group based on the queer community. But it is fundamentally not true, and I decided I care more about truth than my own emotional comfort.

(That said, it did take me years to come to this conclusion, so I empathize very much with women who also take time.)

So what I'm trying to say here is that your concerns are valid. I encourage you very much to do your own research and form your own opinions on the topic of gender. Contrary to what some TRAs say, reading or watching radfem content is not going to brainwash you. For all I know, you'll think, "wow, this is bullshit." (I suspect not, but you never know.)

Regardless, learning about radical feminism will inform you, and you can take what you've learned and decide what to do with it. Please remember that you are a smart woman who doesn't need to adhere to the gospel of any community because they say so.

(And for what it's worth, I've found radical feminist communities to be much more open to differing opinions and debate than queer communities ever were.)

Here are some resources:

Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism - Kathleen Stock (I adore this book. She has a very measured take on the topic and concentrates on the impacts of gender ideology as a whole rather than on individual cases.)

JKR's infamous essay, if you haven't read it

Detransition: Beyond Before and After - Max Robinson (A tentative rec because I only just started reading it, but it's an account of a woman who underwent transition due to dysphoria, then detransitioned as she discovered radical feminism. Short summary of a complex book, but it might be worth reading.)

Good luck, anon! Please feel free to DM me or send me another ask if you'd like. I 1000% will never out anyone who contacts me.

NB: Can any of my followers contribue video resources anon might find helpful?

*I want to acknowledge that as a 30-something bi woman in a long-term het relationship who doesn't do much social media (or even interact with many people IRL), I haven't been exposed to the bigotry, hate, and occasional physical violence that, for example, an early-20s lesbian might have. I'm sympathetic to women who've experienced this and understand their anger.