#listen to transwomen

[radicalavender]

i was abt to post this with the caption “this is why im never dating a bi woman again” (which is also real) but apparently op is a tim so like yeah very likely thing for him to say

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

transitioning towards femininity? you can just be feminine…

big fucking lol at the „you dont share the experiences and oppression [so you cant call yourself that]“ which i agree with but i wish transwomen or transfems could and would apply that to calling themselves women. enough with the „transwomen are women“. maybe we agree honestly i dont know all their stances but i support their endeavour to point out that the trans experience for male people fundamentally differs from being a woman.

also the hashtags are so funny. making fun of people who say misandry is not real then mocking people who are uncomfortable with someone defending paraphilias. funny shit

[puppysdog]

ok actually excited for the opening band tonight

[hadesoftheladies]

“You just haven’t read books by feminist transwomen! Transwomen have so much to offer on discussions about womanhood.”

sorry, but i cannot respect the opinion of anyone who denies the reality of sex-based oppression and thinks gender is material reality, and is morally okay with violating the oldest human rights movement in human history by shitting on their language and culture and using it as a means to gain power and control over that group i am not comfortable listening to the opinions of racist, homophobic, misogynistic white men or any man

men will never be experts on women’s experiences so jot that down and fuck off

[lavendeerlesbian]

The privilege of trans-identified males is astounding. They can be outed as pedophiles, rapists, and/or murderers and then go on paid leave from their workplace. Influencer TIMs will e-beg and get thousands, maybe even tens or hundreds of thousands even AFTER being outed as a pedophile.

They cry oppression over how hard their lives are because they were misgendered once while offhandedly mentioning that they got well-paying jobs in a competitive industry while in the middle of a recession, without acknowledging the irony in what they're saying whatsoever.

Even the ones who do actually face any type of consequence will be given the benefit of the doubt, may be excused or let go from a judge entirely because they blame their crimes on their gender feelings, and may go to women's prisons where they can continue to prey on vulnerable women who are literally trapped there with them.

I cannot believe that males are oppressed on the basis of trans identity, ever.

[la-boricua]

So first I am glad Tumblr is having the most nuance conversation about Chapelle.

I do hope people start asking themselves why folks wait to connect the dots on harm. Why wait till it’s crystal clear due to some factor that harm to Transwomen is going to somewhere equate to harm to any other person? Why do people wait until it affects them in the personal before connecting dots?

[oldweedsmokingbf]

as a transmasc... some of y'all transmascs are weird and need to shut up >_>

[dragonstailbutch]

hey yall. i need you to sit down with me real quick. its not anything awful, im just disappointed i guess.

i started forcemasc, force trans masculinization, with the intent on making it positive and mostly for myself cause my relationship with my body and gender is complicated.

i knew that force masc has generally speaking before i made the kink as it is now, to be mostly aimed at misgendering and detransitioning trans women. A awful thing and in most cases unkind. so when i started the tag and made this space (and i DID make this space, you cantvlie or gaslight me, I've got the paper trail) i wantef to make it positive for transmasc people and people like me, who dont get to feel the positivity of being trans and wanna be handsome instead of femme or hairy or what have you

so im really disappointed in transmen whove decided that not only is it about becoming a man, its about forcing other people into being men, which could be ok in certain contexts, cnc is a thing and im a fan of some of the stuff i see there from yall occasionally.

but yall, i need you to understand that i, a trans butch, started this tag, not a trans man. i need you to understand that being awful to other trans women and similarly other people in our community just makes it easier for terfs and rads and others to target transwomen

i need you to understand that androphilia, autoandrophilia is not a tag to be used for anything, i need you to understand our history, trans mens AND transwomens, that transandrophobia is a thing primarily used to excuse transmisogyny against trans women, not a real attack on trans men.

i need you to understand that forcemasc is about helping someone with their t-shots, putting gel on their chests, helping them feel handsome, sittong with them andbeing there to listen, and not all of those at once. its not just anout trans dudes

and YES i do get to have a say in this tag, i literally made it, its my child, i still care about it, I care about YOU and our community

if you dont understand why transwomen dont wanna talk to you this is why, you purposely misgender us cause you want to feel special, you purposely call us dude or bro or guy when we tell you jot to, when in any other case youd stop, because you think we're dumb or stupid or because youve fallen for the lies of terfs and awful people

[velvetvexations]

has that lavendersalve person even seen what happens when you headcanon FICTIONAL women as transmasc/trans men... like the egg jokes are transfem and vaguely forcefem related which is why there's pushback from transmascs saying "hey these make me uncomfortable" and often shield with cis guys because we know we won't be listened to if we say our peace about ourselves

I don't personally know anything about the transmasc experience in this regard, having mostly seen it with cis men, but that sounds right.

A lot of cis GNC men make forcefem jokes about being cis GNC men, and transwomen can also make those jokes between each other, but throwing it at people who are not transwomen or even GNC men is deeply cringe. As I said in the tags, it's perfectly acceptable to suggest meditating on gender identity if someone seems like that would be helpful to hear but be fucking respectful.

This is mostly unrelated but I also hate the word "femboy" being appropriated as a fake slur for transwomen. No! It was never that, it's always been something GNC men (cis and trans) came up with and used for themselves, the fact that it kinna sounds vaguely similar to "ladyboy" means fucking nothing and just makes you seem a little transmisogynistic! But just like everything else, transmascs repeating that did not fucking listen to me when I tried to tell them otherwise.

[transgymbro]

this might be a weird ask but idrk.. im 15 and for years(since ive came out) ive seen people say over and over again that transmen have it easier and that they should shut up and listen to transwomen and I just sat through it because I felt I had to. I will admit im very lucky(my family is accepting, I live in a very safe area) but that doesnt mean ive never faced transphobia, but I felt like my experiences didnt matter. im really glad youve talked abt this

also I think too many ppl forget that not all queer people are white, ive seen so many post about how transmen dont face any oppression.. when even non white cis men do(and non straight cis men)

Thank you for the message!

Don't listen to people telling you that you have it easier just because you're a trans guy. It is not easy to exist anywhere if you are trans, regardless of what gender you are. Listen to trans women when it pertains to transmisogyny and their experiences, but do not let them tell you what your own are, and do not listen to the self flagellating trans men who tell you to let someone else tell you what your experiences are.

I say this as a trans man who also lives in a safe area and has an accepting family. You and I are very fortunate in that sense, but that does not mean we don't face discrimination and it does not mean we don't encounter microaggressions or antimasculinity every now and then. Your experiences do matter.

Be safe and I hope your transition goes well!

[zzoupz]

Why are you so adamant on making men part of the lesbian community. Literally every other sexuality has men in it, why can't there be something exclusively for women and non-men? This isn't even transphobia, I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible, because I know transwomen can be lesbians but transmen as lesbians too? Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Also the "sexuality is too fluid we shouldn't try to define it" is such a lesbophobic rhetoric. If it applies to you, sure, but don't assume it's the same for every other queer folks out there because it just isn't the same case. Do you know how tiring it is to hear from homophobic elders tell you how it'll just pass, it'll change don't try to define yourself as a lesbian. Because it fucking hurts. Please don't try to paint me as a bad guy, I beg you. I'm as old as you and a lesbian, I WANT to understand but so far I don't even feel safe in the community anymore. I'll still be a lesbian because I literally can't control this but I don't think I'd want to associate with an "accepting" community who won't even listen to my concerns.

the thing about identity is that you don't get to choose. only you understand yourself best and no one will be able to change who you are inside. that goes for everyone. "Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you can't support it" goes for everyone.

do you think they do that on purpose? do you think they deliberately choose to not only be persecuted by non-queers, but also from the very community that is supposed to support them, on purpose?

do you know how many posts I've seen, dehumanizing my beloved friends saying that they can't and don't and shouldn't exist. from the community that is supposed to be outside the box, nonconforming, non-conservative, even?

also, about your point, that's just not true. sexuality is fluid and that's the truth. it can change all the time, even against your will. maybe you will, maybe you won't. what is important is that you should be accepted either way and should be able to define yourself however you want. which again, goes for everyone.

there are way more important fights to be fought. infighting will only helps our enemies.

since you said that you are my age (~17) I know that you still have a lot of time and many opportunities to learn. I hope you can realize this and will change and grow as a person. if you insist to not do that, I do not want people like you around here. get out of my sight.

[pillarsalt]

I'm in friend groups with trans women and I can't help but notice that my opinions get dismissed a lot compared to them.

The other day I was pointing out misogyny from a gay dude in a group and a trans woman agreed with me. He listened to her not me, she got an apology and I didn't. We said literally the same things.

I'm losing my mind. I can't talk about misogyny because I'm worried I'll get called a TERF. I honestly don't care about what people want to identity as and I'll be happy to oblige but I hate how I can't talk about how we have different needs. Like sure trans people perceived as their gender are in the same group as me, but they face specific fetishization or discrimination that they can talk about and have a word for but if I want to talk my issues being a cis woman I can't. I have to put 200 disclaimers to say I'm not a Bad Person.

Like it genuinely pisses me off so bad when issues get diluted out of misogyny. Like people refusing to say the abortion bans affect primarily women and are women's issues. Non progressive circles ignore me because they hate women and progressive circles don't care about misogyny unless it's towards trans women. I'm ignored everywhere.

This is why it's both hilarious and hair-tearingly frustrating when men who identify as women claim that everyone (especially women) are nicer to them when they are "seen as" women. Really it's that people see men who want others to treat them like women, and treat them not as women, but as a special class of men whose desire to control the way they are perceived is of dire importance. So important that they will threaten dissenters with violence and social ostracization. Have you ever seen any misogynistic man threatened by women with violence for insulting and dehumanizing women? And then how many women are threatened with assault, the loss of her livelihood, even murder for simply asserting that male and female people have different experiences and needs for social services? for refusing to capitulate to the assertion that someone born male can become a woman? for acknowledging a worldwide history of institutional sex-based injustice and subjugation? It isn't that the majority of people actually perceive transwomen as women; they are afraid of what the consequences will be if they don't bend to the fiction about a subcategory of men who are upheld as divinely infallible (and somehow, the epitome of womanhood). And as usual, male opinions, desires, feelings are prioritized over the dignity and class consciousness of female people.

Speaking of consequences, unfortunately, the current state of things means that talking unabashedly about misogyny, even non-trans-related misogyny, makes you a target for "terf" accusations. That's why it's so important that as many women as possible speak up about it. The animosity that feminists endure for talking about misogyny, the oppression and subjugation that women, female people, endure, is not new. "Terf" is just a new iteration of witch, bitch, feminazi. The same old venom. Women have been villainized for fighting back against misogyny throughout history, and even under a veneer of progressivism, male supremacy remains the same. You should not be made to feel like you are a bad person for pointing out obvious inequality. And you don't have to just take it. More and more women are realizing what a sham it all is, you aren't alone. It's hard to stand up for what's right when it's unpopular to do so, but it's very very necessary.

Be well, anon.

[aresianrepose]

Before the semester kicks off and murders me, @disniq​ asked for my essay on Jason Todd and hysteria. So, without further ado, here is an actual essay (fucking dissertation) because I refuse brevity. It is extremely long. I’ve split it into sections so you can find the section header and read what you want. This does not encompass all the narrative trauma themes and lived experiences that this boy holds, just specifically hysteria. 

Jason Todd, The Hysteric & Bruce Wayne, The Batman

I think it’s a common reading that Jason Todd is girl-coded and the patron saint of victims, at least within the circle that I’ve fallen into within this fandom. There are plenty of meta discussions on why those readings stand, so I’m not going to reiterate them. A pillar of him being girl-coded and someone trauma survivors have latched onto as one of our own has to do with being written in the context of hysterical femininity. And let me just say, I don’t think that writing was done in a way that he was intentionally coded as hysterical, but it is a function of our patriarchal society that this coding was used on him albeit without the explicit purpose of writing a hysteric story. 

For the purpose of this post: the word woman includes ciswomen, transwomen, and any person who is socially positioned as a woman regardless of gender identity. I include the positionality here because anyone can experience misogyny and sexism depending on the perception of the perpetrators either interpersonally or systemically. 

The History and Context of Hysteria

To understand the context, we have to look at the history and oppression of hysteria. Hysteria (in the modern context of psychology) emerged in the nineteenth century and is difficult to define by design and often applied to traumatized, unruly, and broken women. The main patriarchs who contributed to hysterical study were Jean-Martin Charcot and Sigmund Freud. I only mention this because it’s important to know their names moving forward for any of this to make sense. The beginning of this started with Charcot literally putting women whose lives had been marked by rape, abuse, exploitation, and poverty on display in his Tuesday lectures (which were open to the public) to show his findings on hysteria. This was actually seen as restoring dignity (fucking yikes) to the women because before Charcot these hysterical women were cast aside and not treated at all. In Charcot’s work, the women’s speech was seen as simply “vocalization” and their inner lives, their stories, their words, were silenced. After hearing a woman cry for her mother during one of the public sessions Charcot remarked, “Again, note these screams. You could say it’s a lot of noise over nothing” (Herman). 

This led to Freud, Charcot’s student, wanting to surpass his teacher by discovering the cause of hysteria. This was disastrous. Freud started with listening to the hysterics. In doing so, he learned and believed them about the abuse, rape, and exploitation of their pasts. He then published his work and gave a lecture on it. The work rivals even contemporary psychological work on trauma in it’s level of compassion, understanding, and treatment of survivors. However, he was then labeled a feminist (this was all happening during the first wave of feminism) and professionally ostracized. How in the world could these aristocratic French men be sexually abusing their wives, sisters, and daughters??? Insanity, truly. And... This always fucking gets me. He recanted his work and then told his patients they all imagined it because they wanted to be sexually abused by their husbands, brothers, and fathers. This set back the study of trauma by literally a century. One colleague called his work “a scientific fairy-tale” simply because he had the audacity to believe victims. Also, I want to point out that the famous hysteria case during this time was the case of Anna O and she was ultimately villainized by the entire psychological community for going into crisis after her care provider abruptly ended their therapeutic relationship after two years of DAILY sessions. 

Anyway. We can see how the power of these men over vulnerable women silenced, pathologized, villainized, infantilized, and used male ‘logic’ to completely destroy their credibility and lives under the guise of care and hysteria. Even when credible men lend their expertise and voices to the victims, their voices are silenced. This particular iteration of hysteria lasted over a century, and we are still dealing with the consequences of these actions and ideas within our social construction, medical and mental health care, interpersonal relationships, and more. Patriarchal pillars such as hysteria don’t die. We saw it move from hysteria to schizophrenia (which used to have the same symptoms of hysteria before the diagnosis changed in more contemporary psychology) after this which led to widespread lobotomies and electroshock therapy (my least favorite case of a lobotomy being done is on a woman who was diagnosed with LITERALLY ‘narcissist husband’) to depression in the 40s-50s with the over prescription of benzodiazepines to house wives to keep them in a zombie state (these prescriptions were sometimes double and triple what we take today with the intent of medical catatonia). In my opinion, as well as other counselors within the feminist therapy theoretical orientation, we are currently seeing it with the emergence of borderline-personality disorder. Think about how BPD is treated and demonized for a second. I professionally know therapists who refuse to work with BPD clients due to this villainization and just fucking gross perception of victims.

These are just the highlights, but it shows the history of hysteria. There have been centuries of women being marked as hysterical and the cures have ranged from lobotomy to bed rest (which sounds not so bad but read the Yellow Wallpaper and get back to me on that one). While the Yellow Wallpaper is fictional, the life behind it was not. After the traumatic birth of her child the author, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was remanded to bed rest by the authority of her husband and doctor. Within the sphere of medical control, hysterical women are often treated as children while their doctors make decisions for their mental well-being without consulting them, or they hide the truth of their procedures for “the woman’s own good” and because “she’s hysterical and wouldn’t comprehend the logical need for this.” She then had a mental break due to the treatment. Again, we see hysterical women being silenced, infantilized, discredited from their own experiences, and under the narrative control of male logic and voices. 

Hysterical women have often historically been seen as beneath men, except for when they’re dangerous. Listening to victims is inherently threatening to the status quo because all trauma comes from a systemic framework. The framework that upholds patriarchal power. It’s easy to see why that would be seen as dangerous to powerful men. We saw this with the European witch genocide in which oppressed women were targeted and wiped out under the excuse of what was considered women’s work. (Before this time, witchcraft wasn’t tied to any religion and was mostly just seen as women’s work. It was targeted specifically to have an excuse to persecute widows, homeless, disabled, and vulnerable women who no longer had men to reign over them during a time of political unrest and scarce resources). This time period saw hysterical and traumatized women demonized as dangerous, evil, immoral, hypersexual, and supernaturally wily. A threat to the moral fabric of society. 

(Interesting history side note: this caused the view of women’s base traits we have today. It stemmed from the Victorian era that came after this time period in which women learned if they behaved a certain way, they would be spared the stake. For example, before the witch trials, women were actually seen as the ones with unsatiable sexual appetites, something we culturally prescribe to men now.) 

Notice how none of this has to do with the actual abuse that happens to the women, but instead the labeling and treatment of women when they are already showing the symptoms of abuse, trauma, control, exploitation, and rape. 

Jason Todd, The Hysteric

So, how does this relate to Jason Todd? To say that Jason has experienced trauma would be an understatement. Extreme poverty, loss of parent to death and addiction, loss of parent to the justice system, parental abuse, manipulation, witnessing violent crimes, witnessing the aftermath of sexual abuse and assault, arguably (not explicit in the text) his own sexual trauma, witnessing the dead bodies of victims, a violent death, and subsequently a violent resurrection. There’s also an argument to be made for being a child soldier and how that is romanticized up until he dies, but the text does not treat this as traumatizing.

Now, I’m not going to dive into the trauma he experienced. The purpose of this is only to look at how he’s framed as hysterical in the narrative, and as I stated, hysteria was a word slapped on women after they tried to talk about their trauma or exhibited symptoms (or were just unruly women). Jason does embody many facets of the victim experience and this is just one of them. 

Feelings vs “logic” - Firstly, it is really hard to talk calmly about things that you carry, your experiences, your trauma, and things that specifically harm you. It is easy to talk calmly about things that don’t. This is why there is an abuse tactic of gaslighting or silencing victims by framing their very real reactions to harm or their triggers as abuse, this is known as “reactive abuse.” This tactic is also employed in oppressive settings where the privileged group will often default to ‘winning’ a debate by being able to remain calm while the marginalized group whose life, personhood, etc is being harmed by the things being discussed and are unable to have a sterilized, emotionless debate. 

Both of these settings fit Jason nicely within the moral context of vigilante comics. He fought back, he didn’t lay down, and he will do what he deems as necessary to protect himself and others from his fate. This, however, is framed by Bruce and others as being just as bad as his murderer or even just as bad as Joe fucking Chill. To put this in perspective of a real world equivalent. Combine every billionaire on this planet into one person and instead of their shitty business practices murdering people, they did it with their own two hands. And due to their resources and political power, they would never, ever stop killing or be reasonably contained. More people would die with absolute 100% certainty. Would killing that one person make you equally bad as that person or violating the sanctity of life? That’s the moral question that Bruce puts onto Jason. While the moral question inherent to Jason is actually, is there a line worth crossing to provide reasonable safety (for yourself or the nameless community)? There is actually a difference between those two questions and the reactive abuse framing is certainly a choice. Also, it is funny to me that a man with the amount of power Bruce has (and frequently misuses) can lecture a murder victim on the misuse of power and morality. Are we supposed to be agree with his stoic, philosophical lecturing to a marginalized, abused, murder victim? (yes, we are). Bruce leverages (personal) philosophy against victim’s voice for their own safety, and take a wild guess which one is framed as logical and reasonable.

Jason’s morals come secondary to Bruce’s philosophy in a universe where there is still harm being done (but it’s an acceptable harm). Why is killing the line? Bruce is regularly destroying families and lives by feeding them into the prison industrial complex while supporting it with his whole chest. Or he’s disabling and seriously maiming people with the level of violence he uses. 

Crying - Throughout the entire story of Under the Red Hood, we never once see Bruce emote while interacting with Jason outside of tight grimaces. With the exception of the shock he shows at the Joker’s life being threatened, which... Okay, suuure. We never see him cry during any of their interactions, but we do see Jason cry. Specifically, we see him crying when he’s at his most emotionally vulnerable and physically dangerous to the toxic male power fantasy. This kind of vulnerability is rarely shown by male characters, and when it is, it’s usually done with a mist of a tear in their eyes or their face is hidden. There are a few narrative devices that allow men to cry, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Usually, it’s to play for laughs, infantilize, or emasculate. Here, we see Jason combine the violence of a bad victim, bucking the system of power, and fully crying. Just slide right into that hysterical coding like a glove. Jason often shows his feelings entirely. Time and time again, the readers have seen Jason have breakdowns, cry, and be overcome with grief. This is tied to his portrayal as hysterical and unstable in the narrative, but in actuality it shows his capacity for love and how vastly impactful his death was. 

This fits nicely with the next point that Jason fits into the hysterical box. Love is framed as one of his key faults. A son reaching for his father. 

Love - One of Jason’s defining features is the amount of love and compassion he holds. He’s willing to put up with any treatment, shoulder blame, and sacrifice himself for others to almost an unhealthy degree. However, this doesn’t extend to what he defines as his baseline safety. This one line of safety is the one thing that can’t be crossed, even with all of the love he feels for his father. He desperately wants to feel connection, have a family, and be loved in return with the same unwavering ferocity love that he gives. This is such a fucking key part of the victim experience, especially victims of childhood trauma. The desperation to just be chosen. He’s raw and honest with his reasonable expectation for love to provide safety for him and that is framed as hysterical, needy, unstable, naive, and fucking childish. Victims know what they need to have safety, and this framing as Bruce knowing what’s best for Jason and literally giving a cold shoulder to his needs is disgusting. 

Less than - Jason is portrayed as less powerful than Bruce even though they have similar expertise. There are so many instances of this that if you just open any media they both appear in, you can close your eyes, point, and land on an example. It makes me die laughing every time I remember that the Arkham games made Jason just one inch shorter than Bruce. Like, they can’t even be the same fucking height, that’s the level of insecure masculinity surrounding this relationship. Jason cannot and will never be able to be on par with Bruce because of his hysterical femininity and the power of Bruce being the self insert for the toxic male power fantasy. This power dynamic applies to the other batkids as well, but specifically in Jason’s case there is an element of hysteria. The reasons change because he’s so inconsistently written but usually he can’t surpass or even meet a stalemate with Bruce because he’s too emotional, he’s unstable, traumatized, and simply Bad. It’s even explicitly stated by Alfred in Under the Red Hood. 

Victim blaming - Jason deserved to die because he didn’t follow orders. Jason deserved to die for not following his training. Jason deserved to die because he was an angry Robin (oh no a child had an appropriate reaction to sexual violence). Jason deserved to die for being human.

Infantilization - Jason is repeatedly infantilized in contrast to Bruce. When given the ultimatum at the end of UtRH, Bruce speaks to Jason like a child, or a bad dog. Ordering him to do things like, “enough!” or “stop this now.” Bruce knows what’s best for Jason (and for everyone in the entire world), we should really just take his word for it and not the victim’s. Imagine staring at a 6 foot wall of a man and scolding him like a child. Beyond that, as mentioned above, his views of love and safety are framed as childish. Even though they are actually leaning more toward collectivism rather than the rampant individualism that Bruce so strongly defers to. (also, just a side note, collectivistic methods in healing from trauma is actually the only scientifically reliable way to heal. Every other method has absolutely abysmal results and higher rates of relapses.)

Silenced and Safety Villainized - Jason is silenced in his own story, acceptable and honored when he was dead and met with vitriol in life. All of the love given to him as Robin turns to ash as soon as he collides with Bruce’s power and morals. I think any survivor can relate to the experience of being told that what happened to them was a long time ago and it’s time to move on. Or even that they’re leveraging their own safety to get what they want in a manipulative way. Regardless of whether or not there was any accountability or justice for the harm done to them. Alfred asks Bruce if he should remove Jason’s memorial in the cave like two seconds after learning of his resurrection because Jason’s methods of securing safety for himself and using his own voice to define his story. Bruce was able to tell Jason’s story when he died. He was able to memorialize, grieve, and ultimately define Jason’s story because Jason wasn’t there to speak for himself. When Jason does speak for himself, he is villainized and literally stripped of his past significance as Robin (or a good victim) by Alfred within seconds. This is reflected in real life with adoptee advocates speaking about how adoption is unethical/harmful/traumatizing and subsequently being framed as ungrateful, selfish, etc. They were little perfect victims without voices before they grew up and could speak for themselves.

Erased - Gestures at the entirety of how Jason is either talked about or completely erased during the 90s Tim Robin run. He wasn’t convenient to talk about, as victims rarely are. This also ties into how Steph’s death was erased and Babs was written like she “won” at trauma by simply... beating it??? 

Dangerous - Jason is framed as threatening the basic fabric of society (in a story with vigilantes this is hard to do, so they have him oppose the no-kill rule, and then doubled down on Bruce’s characterization of no-killing). Anything that bucks the status-quo is usually marked as villainous in mainstream vigilante/superhero comics, but this is a step beyond that into the interpersonal and political sphere. Hysterical women are often framed as dangerous, villains, snakes, and treacherous (the other side of this coin is weak, pathetic, and pitiable) because they are victimized and then have the audacity to do something to the system about it. Whether that be the system of their immediate families or the political sphere. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Jason was paired with Talia in Lost Days to hammer this point home to the reader. It could’ve just as easily been anyone with access to the Pit that rescued him, but no, we had DC’s favorite brown, treacherous, venomous, female punching bag. 

Bruce Wayne, The Batman

Bruce fits well into the father, enforcer, and logical man slot in Jason’s hysterical story. There is a history of ownership throughout women’s history when it comes to their subjugation to men. Women actually couldn’t be put on trial before the witchcraft genocide because they weren’t seen as legally a person. Their male owner would be put on trial instead. Women would go from being owned by their fathers to their husbands after entering marriage, the most dangerous woman being one who isn’t owned (orphaned, widowed). Bruce does treat (and even thinks) about Jason like he’s something that he owns. He’s his protege, his son, and his responsibility. 

The narrative function of Bruce as a perpetrator in Jason’s story. 

“The perpetrator asks the bystander (reader) to do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander (reader) to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement and remembering” (Herman). 

Bruce does remember what happened to Jason. He keeps a permanent memorial to his dead son. However, this doesn’t translate into any kind of tangible action. He doesn’t do anything to actually stop the murderer who took his son’s life and he continues to throw child soldiers at the problem of crime (how many children have died for the sake of his no-kill rule at this point?). When met with the reality of his inaction, he fits into the perpetrator’s role like a glove:

“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the first line of defense... If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens... From the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization... One can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it’s time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater his prerogative to name and define reality, the more completely his arguments prevail” (Herman). 

I think it is simply fact at this point that Bruce is the head patriarch in Gotham if not, arguably, in the entirety of DC. That level of power in the narrative cannot be ignored, especially when faced with the very real, screaming voice of a victim that Bruce uses all of that power to silence. Bruce, because of his status as patriarch, default protagonist, and self-insert for the toxic male power fantasy, has the ultimate power to name and define reality. Especially to the reader. Bruce doesn’t deny what happened to Jason, because that’s physically impossible to do. But what he does do is ensure that no one listens to Jason, discredits him, and rationalizes his own inaction, actions of violence towards Jason, and victim blames.

Here’s Bruce using the most base form of denial and victim blaming:

After this panel, Bruce also revokes Dick’s access to his childhood home simply for asking a question.

This theme extends to other members of the batfam because of Bruce’s narrative power over them. It’s why we can’t have Dick, Steph, Babs, or even Damian step in and relate to Jason’s trauma or vindicate him. Even when we, the readers, can see parallels and wonder why these conversations or bonds aren’t forming. Jason HAS to be a lone wolf because he is hysterical and a threat to the system of power. This also shows why most of his runs in group settings outside of the batfam fall apart or fall flat. If he was humanized by any other character or had his trauma validated in any actionable way, it would be recognizing the failure of the toxic male power fantasy. The readers are not supposed to see the flaw in this system that allows the bodies of children to pile up and sympathize with one of their voices. It would be a crack in the system of power that exists not only in the source material, but very much within our real world.

Side note: Jason is allowed to interact with others in a wholesome and validating way when he no longer threatens the systemic power of Bruce. When he is silenced by the writers and plays the “nice victim” (like Babs does), he is allowed connection. Only when his healing is done in a way that doesn’t demand action and is only his personal responsibility (gotta love the rampant individualism). If he is hysterical, demands action, and asks for someone to be held accountable for his death, he is shoved away into a lone wolf box. Examples: Gotham Knights (from my very basic understanding, I haven’t played the game, only seen play throughs) and WFA. Victims are acceptable if they do their healing in a neat little box and stay there, but hysterics are the ones who step outside of that box.

Red Hood, The Political Voice of Hysteria and Trauma

Red Hood is deeply political in terms of hysteria and trauma. Herman stated that victims and those that authentically care for them or listen to them intently (whether that be interpersonally, clinically, or professionally) are silenced, ostracized, and discredited. Survivors need a social context that supports the victim and that joins the victim and witness in a common alliance. On an interpersonal level this looks like family, friends, and loved ones. However, trauma is systemic and the social context mentioned above must also be given on a wider social scale. For this to be done, there had to be systemic change and political action. Jason had the interpersonal social support and witnesses to his trauma ripped from him by Bruce. So, we see him move onto a systemic level of addressing trauma in his own political way. He literally cannot escape Bruce and this constant trigger because of Bruce’s philosophy and just... fucking power to define reality... being re-enforced constantly in DC no matter where he tries to go. So, he tries to heal by taking the systemic issue of perpetrators who cannot be held accountable or have fallen through the cracks of accountability into his own hands in a very personal way. A one man political movement.

Whether his methods are moral or ethical doesn’t really matter in the overall framing him as hysteric. He simply has to be opposed by the male power fantasy in some significant way. This shows that the goals, needs, and work towards victim’s and the marginalized’s freedom is dangerous, doomed to fail, and ultimately unethical if the victim is framed in a villain light instead of the more pathetic/pitiable iteration of hysteria. 

You can see how this is not only problematic but also reflects the real world values instilled in arguments against human rights movements (which are intrinsically tied to victims rights). Defunding the police is dangerous, the MeToo movement is dangerous, abolition is dangerous, trans rights are dangerous, etc etc etc. Think of the victims voices tied to each of these movements and how they are integral to the real change offered by these political movements. You can’t have human rights violations without creating victims. And you can’t have political movements surrounding human rights without listening to victims.

We can also see how the individuals within these movements are ostracized, villianized, and often silenced (sometimes ultimately silenced with death) because they rally against the systems of power that victimized them. The framing of traumatized, vulnerable people as hysterical is integral to upholding the system of power that traumatizes and harms them.

A popular comic book movie adaptation that highlights the importance of Jason’s hysterical framing and how it impacts the political narrative/how he is written is V for Vendetta. To be fair, it received an insane amount of backlash by conservatives (not within leftist or liberal spaces) for V’s methods in over throwing fascism, but only because of the movie’s release date being so close to 9/11. V and Jason have many parallels, it’s only the lack of hysterical framing that makes V more palatable to the viewer. We are told, not shown through behavior, that V is traumatized by his past and he does not pick a fight with the protagonist that functions as a toxic male power fantasy. He is the protag, with his version of Bruce being men who are not framed in a sympathetic, heroic, or relatable light. 

Additionally, there is literally an unemoting mask standing between the viewer and V, whereas Jason takes off his helmet to allow the reader to see every aspect of his trauma and pain. V readily dehumanizes himself into an idea, rather than a person. Whereas Jason screams to be seen as a person in a very hysterical way. So, we can see how the framing of Jason as hysteric against the logical, heroic man greatly impacts how the audience reads him when contrasted by a very similar political story/character who uses similar (and arguably more violent) methods to meet his ends. (This just made me realize that I would die for a Jason adaptation written by the Wachowski sisters). 

Jason’s work as Red Hood is seeped in leftist, victim, and community centered politics. His portrayal as a hysterical antagonist (at best an anti-hero) is rooted in misogyny and upholding patriarchal, capitalist, and the prison industrial complex systems of power. He is the righteous embodiment of “the personal is political” for victims. Even his Robin run draws attention to and shows correct, angry reactions to the system of patriarchal power in sexual violence.

Patriarchal Writing and Enforcement

Jason is girl-coded and hysterical because he’s supposed to be emasculated, discredited, and disliked by the reader. He serves the narrative function of boosting the toxic male power fantasy of Bruce and in doing so, the writers use one of the oldest tropes in the book (one that we have all subconsciously been taught since birth) to get the reader on their side. Make him a hysterical woman. 

References: for anyone interested in furthering their understanding of any of the concepts mentioned above and to, you know, use sources for my own writing.

Barstow, A. Witchcraze

Bondi, L., Burman. E. Women and Mental Health: A Feminist Review

Freud, S. The Aietology of Hysteria

Gilman, C. P. The Yellow Wallpaper

Herman, J. Trauma and Recovery

Ussher, J. The Madness of Women.

Van der Kolk, B. The Body Keeps the Score

Wilkin, L., Hillock, S. Enhancing MSW Students’ Efficacy in Working with Trauma, Violence, and Oppression: An Integrated Feminist-Trauma Framework for Social Work Education

[sapphsorrows]

sometimes people ask me how I become a terf, and the story is actually quite interesting

see i was on my way home from work one day and i saw a gaggle of terfs with baseball bats chasing an innocent transwoman. i said "stop you terfs! she just wants to pee! don't you know transwomen literally died on the cross and rose three days later to forgive us of our sins and give us the right to vote?" then one of them knocked me out with a wack to the head and the next thing i knew i was on terf island aka the UK where I was being interrogated by jk rowling and her evil co-conspirator kelly jay keen.

I tried to reason with them by explaining the plot of steven universe and singing the song about how you can make a difference, you can make a change, but they just wouldn't listen! then jk rowling made me watch all the harry potter movies clockwork-orange style so i could absorb all of the hateful secret terf messages in the movies. it was then that i became a sleeper agent for the secrety terf army.

after that, i was helicoptered over the united states where i parachuted into a red state because, as we all know, conservatives are huge fans of women's liberation and have actively been at the forefront of the women's movement. i knew that the terf revolution would only be a few years away, and so i started this blog to sow seeds of discord among anti-feminist movements and prepare america for the great matriarchal takeover of 2035.

this is my story. please share if you have any similar experiences <3

[chaifootsteps]

Silly Chai, only transMEN can’t have an opinion on a character’s gender, because transWOMEN are the only ones we need to be listening to, as they’re always right after all. If you disagree with them, then you’re just a transphobe obviously!

If I'm being frank? This is why I wish I could tell young trans people and young transmascs in particular, that if you transition, you need to do it for yourself. Not because you think your new community will embrace you, love you, listen to you, respect you.

They will not. Not when it comes to character discourse, and not when it comes to the big stuff.

[elcomfortador]

This is a sketch from the tenth season of Saturday Night Live, and it features Billy Crystal as Penny Lane, the entertainer at a gay bar, and host Roy Scheider as a straight guy who unknowingly wanders in and assumes Penny is a cis woman. Now, whenever you're dealing with old SNL, it's very hit and miss, and it's especially uneven if you're looking at LGBTQ-themed sketches. But this one? It's actually rather sweet.

Normally, you'd be expecting a cheap joke at Penny's expense (or at least at the expense of drag queens or transwomen), but these two characters have a nice moment together, with most of the humor being at the expense of Scheider's character, who lacks information that Penny (and the audience) has. What results plays out like a funny, thoughtful short film about these two characters have a chance meeting and connecting as humans, if ever so briefly.

To me, it's easy to imagine that Penny and this straight guy are full characters outside of this context. They probably never see each other again, but as they go through the rest of their lives beyond this one sketch, they probably would also remember each other — especially Penny, because the customer pays her a nice compliment without realizing exactly how meaningful it is when he calls her "a nice lady."

This is just one of the sketches we talk about in the fourth installment of Gayest Episode Ever's Queer History of SNL series. You can listen to it at the link below.

They're not all hidden gems like this one is, but this sketch is one of the reasons I'm glad I went digging around in the shows "lost years," which are mainly the ones when Lorne Michaels left.

And you can see all the sketches we discuss in this episode over at the GEE Patreon — and it's viewable even if you're not a supporter.

Subscribe to Gayest Episode Ever: Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts