#we don't need to or have to conform to the roles of our gender in the way capitalist society sells them to us

[magicalgirlmindcrank]

The amount of self loathing on egg irl is fucking wild. I'm honestly quite concerned for the trans youth who frequent it with how normalized it is there.

[subconsciousmysteries]

Men are absolutely losing it because women are seeing through their bullshit and I'm here to watch their collective narcissistic meltdown

[nothorses]

this isn't @ anyone or any particular post, but. I do find myself questioning whether it's useful to distinguish "anti-masculism" from like... misogyny and patriarchy.

maybe it's just me, but narrowing the definition of "misogyny" to just describe contempt for women, specifically, has never felt super accurate to me; the overall system of oppression being described here isn't just about a dislike of women, it's a functioning system (patriarchy) relying on, and as a product of, systemitized misogyny. It's misogyny in a dominant role of power.

And that system (as it currently exists) also requires that gender roles are strictly followed and fulfilled, including by men. It requires no deviance; no queerness and no transness. It requires that women be babymakers and caretakers and sexual gratifiers, and it requires that men be protectors and dominant breadwinners, and seek out sex. (Among other things)

I think it's helpful to expand our understanding of misogyny to include the aspects of it that necessarily impact men; it's not just the toxic masculinity that hurts others, but the system that rewards and punishes conformity to misogynistic gender roles.

"Anti-masculism" feels like it's trying to describe an aspect of this; the way this system views masculinity as brutal and violent and monstrous, especially in relation to men of color, and as a corrupting force- particularly when in contact with (whoever patriarchy views as) women.

And these things exist, and happen, but (obv) so does a mirrored phenomena for femininity; are we calling that "misogyny", to the exclusion of attitudes toward masculinity? Because I don't think it's accurate- and tbh I think it's actively counterproductive- to define that by gendered expression rather than perceived gender.

I honestly think it does more to say that these are all a part of misogyny, and to identify contempt for certain expressions of masculinity as being inherently, necessarily intertwined with other parts of misogyny. Patriarchy relies on all of these things to function, and we need to get folks to understand that challenging these attitudes toward masculinity is, in fact, a crucial part of the fight against patriarchy.

I don't think it works to say "misogyny" is an umbrella term that enconpasses all of this, and that "anti-masculism" just falls under it, either; just practically speaking, I don't think it's helpful to differentiate this particular thing as separate from similar attitudes toward femininity. It's super easy to separate the word from that context (esp without a counterpart for femininity), and while I hate having to factor in optics, I do think there's a parallel here to "transmisandry" in the possible interpretation of the word to mean that men are oppressed/misogyny doesn't exist. Even if we know that's not the intent.

And I don't think it accounts for differences between how either of these manifest for cis vs. trans people, gender-conforming vs. GNC people, straight vs. queer people, white people vs. people of color, etc.; how and why it shows up is gonna be wildly different based on whether you're being presumed more masculine or feminine because of your race, size, or disability status, or whether you're being punished for not conforming to gender expectations one way or another- which will also look different for trans people who present more in line with what's expected of their AGAB vs. their actual gender.

Also- I'm saying this here because I'm open to discussion. I feel like I've read enough about it by this point to have an opinion, but I could absolutely be lacking some crucial info, insight, or perspective, and I want folks to engage with this as a mutual conversation.

[loveerran]

Utah Bathroom Ban

In an effort to protect women and children from a problem that does not exist, Utah legislators recently passed, and the governor recently signed into law, HB 257. Among other things, this bill defines criminal penalties for improper use of a binary, sex-designated (male or female) restroom in a government owned or controlled space that does not correspond to one's assigned sex:

"Going into a bathroom that is not consistent with your birth gender, or your birth sex, you are putting yourself at greater risk. I think that’s the best way for everybody to look at it and say, ‘How do I avoid risk? How do I avoid risk of arrest?'" - Senate sponsor of HB 257 Dan McCay

As a trans woman who has been out and about for 20 years, what I hear in this quote is very specifically: "We want you to be scared when you use a bathroom that doesn't align with your assigned sex at birth. You already know someone may report you just for being there and the criminal justice system is horrible for trans women, so maybe you'll think twice before trying to pee when out in public."

And it works. I am reminded I am different and should be scared of what will happen if the wrong person is having a bad day, reports me to the bathroom monitoring authorities, and some cop starts making choices that put me in a difficult or dangerous situation. Stories of abuses suffered by trans women in the system are legion.

But I don't think my situation is the real problem here. In practical terms, this bill means a trans kid can't use a school restroom that aligns with their gender identity and/or presentation. Instead, they have to develop a 'privacy plan' with the school and use separately designated facilities or a faculty restroom, etc. - reinforcing that they are 'other'. This is very dangerous and will create victims and we have actual data and studies to back up that assertion.

Let me restate: There is data demonstrating that bathroom restrictions hurt gender non-conforming kids, with a reported increase in the sexual assault rate of nearly 50% when bathroom restrictions of this type are in place.

My wife points out "I would be safer in a men's restroom than you. Most men will actually try to protect women, but that doesn't apply to trans women. Quite the opposite."

The sponsors of the bill could not name a single instance of trans kids being a problem in spaces aligned with their gender identity. Not one single incident for them to rely on. And they ignored evidence indicating there are actual harmful effects. This bill makes a small, marginalized group of people more likely to be victims of violence.

This issue was so important to the Utah legislature that they devoted a substantial portion of the 1st two weeks of the legislative session to HB 257, including significant changes after the public comment period passed.

When the bill went live on May 1, the Utah State Auditor's office began being flooded with false reporting (I love you all :)!). The Auditor's office responded by publishing what can only be described as a scathing indictment of the situation:

"the Office created the complaint form to comply with a statutory mandate – a role we did not request. Indeed, no auditor sets out to become a bathroom monitor... Like many in the public, we learned about our role under this bill shortly before the bill was rushed to final passage. I recognize that many Utahns feel trampled by an invasive and overly aggressive Legislature that too often fails to seek input from those most affected."

Thank you to everyone who continues to fight for us on this issue. There aren't enough of us to win this on our own. We need your help.

[volo-thereforeiam]

"Choice feminism" is bad for women in East Asia? What are you on about? Are you seriously rather subscribe to radical feminism that is so white and fail to account WOC and women from the global south in general? Are you seriously going to subscribe to a transphobic movement? You can't say this kind of feminism isn't transphobic because look at 4B or 6B4T in South Korea and China. The movement explicitly exclude transwomen and has been glorified to death by mostly white women. If anything I say the feminism that includes transwomen is good for East Asia to fix the transphobia problem. I feel sorry for transpeople in East Asia if all the feminists are like you.

I'm just going to elaborate point by point.

"'Choice feminism' is bad for women in East Asia? What are you on about?" On paper, choice feminism sounds great because it empowers women to do whatever they want, as long as it's their choice. In reality, women have been groomed to "choose" things that primarily benefit men. People don't make choices in a vacuum; we're influenced by our environment. When strict gender roles and expectations for women still exist aggressively in East Asia, the path of least resistance is to conform to those values. East Asian women "choose" to be housewives and follow exhaustive beauty regimes because society is kinder to them when they do. Or they think these choices are good for them due to moral grooming. Let me ask you: if a conservative, religious, sheltered, and uneducated woman chooses to marry a man 20 years older and have 5+ babies, how much of that is truly her choice? What women need is not empowerment, but agency.

"Are you seriously rather subscribe to radical feminism that is so white and fail to account WOC and women from the global south in general?" That's an interesting perspective, anon! I'd love to hear more about why you consider radical feminism to be "white" someday. Personally, I think liberal feminism (or 3rd wave feminism/choice feminism, I use these terms interchangeably) is the movement that fails to account for women from the global south. While it's true that liberal feminism is quite inclusive, it is still mostly US/Europe-centric (and for simplicity, I include Canada and Australia in the same category). This means that when it accounts for WOC, it's primarily considering WOC who live in those regions. It is known as "Western feminism" for a reason. Radical feminism, on the other hand, doesn't need to work as hard to include WOC from the global south because those women already tend to gravitate towards it instead of liberal feminism. The reason is that liberal feminism has shifted its focus from women’s issues to a broader concern with gender. When women outside the US and Europe haven’t even secured basic rights directly tied to their sex, why should they align with a movement that has moved on to different concerns?

"Are you seriously going to subscribe to a transphobic movement? You can't say this kind of feminism isn't transphobic because look at 4B or 6B4T in South Korea and China. The movement explicitly exclude transwomen and has been glorified to death by mostly white women." 4B and 6B4T at the core are meant to serve as direct opposition of South Korea and China's patriarchal state and combat its aggressive pro-natalist policies, which view women’s bodies and reproductive abilities as tools for the state’s future. Other aspects of the movement, such as rejecting rigid beauty standards and degrading depictions of women in otaku culture, are part of women's effort to not make themselves (excuse the wording) look "breedable". I hope it’s clear why transwomen can't be included in this specific movement.

Regarding the movement being glorified mainly by white women, I'm not aware it is the case because my focus isn't on the West like yours is. But even if we accept your claim as true, how does the support from white women automatically make the movement fundamentally "white" (and, by implication, bad in your view)? Roe v. Wade was just overturned, so it's understandable that Western women, especially Americans, would take an interest in the 4B movement. Or maybe they simply empathize with their fellow women. Let me ask you this: for someone so determined to include transwomen in every feminist movement, why do you consider white women less of women?

"If anything I say the feminism that includes transwomen is good for East Asia to fix the transphobia problem. I feel sorry for transpeople in East Asia if all the feminists are like you." Or we could have separate movements that collaborate when necessary but don't have to be synonymous. Why does feminism need to stretch itself thin to cover every issue? Isn't that one of the factors Roe v. Wade was overturned despite majority in the US disapproved supreme court decision? Feminism in the West has been defanged so much by consumerism, sex empowerment and gender issues. I also believe having a movement specifically for trans people allows for a focus on their unique issues, making it more effective.

You don't need to be sorry for transpeople here because what I'm fighting for can ultimately benefit them too. You policing women's advocacy movement, however, does not benefit anyone.

[utilitycaster]

So I will freely admit to having this same perception during much of Campaign 2, and I understand where it comes from, but with the benefit of hindsight and what we learned from the later campaign, particularly post-hiatus, I do not think that Fjord ever really had a problem with toxic masculinity. I think that some of his issues overlap with what we'd consider toxic masculinity, but I don't actually think that was ever the problem.

Fjord has quite a lot of problems, but in summary: he experienced a childhood of abuse and neglect and bullying, which led to significant insecurities about his appearance and capabilities. He developed into an adult who very much tried to either blend in and not be a burden (the mimicry, the Mask of Many Faces, his confession to Caduceus that he might be a liability) or who alternately had significant issues with power and control and ruthlessness (which, notably, he admits to Caleb, who cops to having the exact same problem).

So while those issues of needing to be in control, to hide vulnerability, and to have some measure of power and usefulness are very much part of the constellation we'd understand as toxic masculinity, he lacks many of the others - objectification of and violence towards women (he is in fact often uncomfortable with attention from women), excessive aggression, even violence. He is, of course, quite violent; but this is D&D and he's not notably more violent than most characters - and when he is, it's primarily either towards people trying to kill him, or specifically towards his friends' abusers and with his friends' permission.

Much of the toxic masculinity was pinned on to Vandran, but in the end, we see Vandran, and that doesn't appear to be his issue either. He is also reticent, and comes off as somewhat stern; but he also made the same exact choice to relinquish power and break his pact, and he's not described as womanizing or particularly violent, and is described as enjoying a romance novel and respecting Jester. Vandran's expectations for Fjord (never mind that many of Fjord's expectations are ones he has placed upon himself) are never, not once, indicated to come from a place of "be a man."

All of the traits Fjord displays are quite easily found among the women of Critical Role, or among men who don't receive the same criticism. The masks, inability to show vulnerability except to one or two people, and need for power and control? That's indistinguishable from Vex; it's their response to traumatic childhoods of neglect, deprivation, and loss. The control issues and ruthlessness show up in Caleb's story, and Caleb is rarely tarred with the same brush of toxic masculinity despite also being, well, a man and a fairly gender-conforming one at that [setting aside that gender roles in Exandria, like sexuality, don't fully map onto our real-world conceptions, since I don't think a full thesis on death of the author is helpful here]. Fjord lacks the arrogance of Percy, Molly, or Caduceus. Beau is honestly much more socially aggressive. Jester shows similar issues with expressing difficult emotions or asking for help and both she and Caduceus share Fjord's tendency to place standards upon their own behavior no one else expected. Laudna has the same issues with needing to be useful, Keyleth and Veth share many of Fjord's general insecurities, Yasha is, at least during the campaign, just as violent; and any number of female villains, but notably Avantika, Delilah, and Ripley, are far more ruthless and power hungry than Fjord ever is.

He is definitely a deeply flawed individual - the current two-shot is showing the depth of his issues and how they are a tangle of pick-up sticks he has barely begun to dismantle - but it seems disingenuous to pin these flaws on toxic masculinity for Fjord when there's never any tangible indication that they spring from that source.

[quinnkdev]

Hi Quinn! As a huge An Outcry enthusiast and someone who struggles with finding names that feel comfortable to use and feel like "me" I found a lot of comfort in a trans character not having any name at all. I'm super curious about your thought process behind the unnamed being "unnamed"

There's a few reasons for that decision!

To an extent, it's an idea I expanded out from an old abandoned series of stories called the "Something Stories". These stories were an expression of non-binary feelings before I even knew what that was! The protag of those stories had no name and no gender, using it/its pronouns. It'd find itself in a whole host of different situations and roles: A soldier, an unhoused person, the author... That series of stories never showed up anywhere because it was pretty bad in a few respects, but it did hone my skills at writing multi-perspective narratives, and my use of language games. An Outcry was first conceived when that series had just been wrapped up, so some of the ideas from it were still fresh in my mind.

The Unnamed's namelessness was supposed to fake the player out a little bit; make them believe they're playing a blank slate when in actuality, the character they play has quite a bit of personality of their own.

It was also intended as a symbol of the ubiquitous nature of many of their experiences and struggles, and, alternatively, of their many flaws as a character. The Unnamed, despite their specificity, is merely a single person struggling in the ways that the game shows - one of many.

There's one more under the cut, as it constitutes a spoiler:

There's a little out-of-the-way passage in An Outcry, when you sit down before the convo with Esma and Anne rather than helping Esma set down the tea-tray:

It ties Aster's namelessness to their struggles with mental health, and to an internalisation of the shoddy treatment they received over being gender non-conforming. It's an expression of that noxious demand the world puts on trans people:

"Before you get to have this nice thing that makes you feel better, you need to pass, and get surgery, and do what we tell you to. Except it's up to our whims if you'll get it at all! Dance!! Dance, monkey, for our amusement, and don't you dare be happy!!"

Aster's mental health struggles (and all the ways they're expressed in the snippet of their life we see) - their underweightness, their agoraphobia, their addiction, their struggles with using their chosen name, their suicidal ideation - are often a direct result of how they are treated by the world around them: Their parents, Eisen, Schmitt, Alex, strangers in the street - hell, to a small extent, even Anne.

Namelessness is, therefore, an extension of how worthless the world views them - And it's no coincidence that the Shrikes will consistently call them "nameless" as a result.

Aster, up until the inciting incident of the game, was a very passive person, and in that way, they soaked up how others derogatised them like a sponge.

---

There's a lot more to say about this, but I think the rest I'll leave up to interpretation.

[aroclan]

yeah, i think i'm gonna take on the agender label for real.

my understanding is "gender identity" is defined as "your internal sense of gender" and like, that is not an intelligible statement. i have spent a serious number of hours on this; it just isn't.

i could agree that there are two socially constructed gender roles that we assign to bodies based on our reading of the sex of those bodies. (and if we don't think we can read the sex of a body: anxiety happens, because it disrupts this deeply trained process.)

i could agree that i have learned to present well enough as my assigned sex to avoid being policed. this is where it gets all circular: i allow my body to have signs of its sex, and perform the gender role 'enough' to avoid causing anxiety, confusion, backlash. i (like to think i) have more creative things to do with my energy than invest more than necessary into this performance.

i could agree i am what i am, and that i don't conceptualize of my traits or interests in terms of gender. conversely, my gender does not inform the things i pursue. i do not feel validated by performing normalized behavior for my gender role; i do not feel diminished by performing nonconforming behavior. i don't feel a need to do anything to "feel like" my gender.

i don't even know what "feeling like" a gender is like? i tested out the other gender role, but it was the same thing with a lot of misogyny heaped on.

when i choose to display gender non-conforming behaviors, it's not because "knitting expresses my gender" but because i want to push on the externally imposed chains of gender roles, breaking them down bit by bit. people read my sex as male, but knitting, and maybe get inspired to push on their own cages a bit.

when i choose not to display these, it's not because i'm feeling different about gender liberation, it's because i'm feeling tired of all the policing that non-conformance invites.

after all of this, then, i don't know what an 'internal feeling of gender' is. i have not lost sight of gender's artificiality.

[bylertruther]

sometimes. people on here will say things where i know if i point-blank asked them "hey, do you like butches, femmes, and people that do not 'look' or 'act' queer?" they'll of course say yes duh. and i know if i asked them, "cool. do you think that an androgynous person or 'very gender nonconforming' (for lack of better phrasing) is more queer than someone that isn't?" they'll say no of course not.

but then you read the things they've said about how queer people present themselves, how they "should" present themselves once they've reached a fully realized state, and how it relates to gender and relationships and its like Hmmmmmmmmmm. i don't think you do like any of those three groups i mentioned actually if that's how you really feel on those issues lmao.

it's the same school of thought behind the perplexingly popular idea that because noah wears athleisure, he couldn't possibly be gay (before he came out, this was the common sentiment; and even now, people act like finn is more queer than noah, just because he "looks and acts" like it according to them). this idea that you have to look and act a certain way to be Actually Queer or Queer Enough, and if you don't, then that's because you've fallen victim to conforming or you just aren't as comfortable with your identity. (what? as if there's a single queer identity to begin with?)

that if you're a queer guy and you behave or look masculine, then you just haven't come out of your shell and accepted yourself or experimented enough. that if you're a queer woman and you're feminine, then the same applies, or you're not as queer as a butch woman, who does exhibit gender nonconformity, for example. and if you're butch or femme (+ other equivalents), or in a relationship with your counterpart, then you're perpetuating heteronormativity, as if that's even possible, and we all know that's so very, awfully, terribly Bad, you're a stain on the community, and you have issues you need to work out.

people don't have to look or act in a particular way to be acceptably queer enough. we don't all gravitate towards certain expressions of gender nonconformity or androgyny just because we're queer, and a failure to do that doesn't suggest that we're uncomfortable with ourselves and our identity. you can continue to be yourself as you were even after realizing you're queer. that's not impossible or a bad thing.

femmes and gay men that are masculine in any capacity are not traitors, confused, or less gay. some people are the way that they are, regardless of their sexuality. we don't all morph into the same person when we realize we're queer. that shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand? that's literally just... being a human and treating queer people as such.

those evil gay people who are in "masc/fem" relationships aren't perpetuating heteronormativity either. just because they exist outside of your realm of understanding, or have the kind of relationship that you wouldn't personally want for yourself, that doesn't mean that they aren't members of your community—which is the queer community, in case you forgot—and don't deserve respect, too.

like. it's just so demoralizing lmao. what's so hard to understand about accepting that people are all different and that just because we may belong to the same community, that doesn't mean that we are all the same and must fall in line? it's so tone-deaf, insulting, and just plain unrealistic. you may not mean it that way, but it is. that rhetoric just is.

feminine gay women exist. masculine gay men exist. sometimes they may experiment with their gender expression once realizing this, but they don't always and they don't have to to be considered queer. butch/fem relationships and other similar relationships are not imitations of heterosexuality, because they're fucking gay, and they do not adhere to traditional heterosexual roles, because, again, they're fucking gay.

your experiences and beliefs are not universal. gay people are not clones of each other. stop invalidating or speaking down on other queer people just because you can't relate to them personally. i know some people don't mean to insinuate these things, but you do. you are. constantly. and the people that fall in those categories you've deemed unacceptable and other, see it.

it's so... exhausting to face that in this space, which is supposed to be a respite from the physical world where that happens, too. and those actions, those beliefs that people share, they also bleed into the physical world and how you interact with other people in your community. it's not just little words that you write and have no meaning. it doesn't start and end with a fictional character. the things that you say matter and sometimes they're very troubling.

people who have been in those "fem/masc" relationships, or that identify with any kind of similar label, have not lived a life that's an imitation of heterosexuality, nor are they any less queer than you just because you haven't been in/participate in relationships like that.

[thatspookyagent]

Being Black and presenting as masculine, embracing masculinity, traditionally masculine gender roles, and so much more that may be viewed as masculine within certain societies, is not lesser than anything associated with femininity. Black masculine women and femmes do not need to conform or perform to your standards and ideas of femininity, in order to be seen as human, gentle, caring, dainty, or worthy of protection. Neither do masc presenting Black women and femmes need to even like being feminine or have to be feminine in general, in order to be important and cherished voices within their respective communities.

All Black women and femmes, regardless of identities and presentations, do not need to embrace and present as feminine in order for our lives to be seen as valuable. We do NOT need to be feminine in order to receive sympathy or empathy. We do not need to be feminine in order to be included in the phrase/movement of Protect Black Women. And we don't need a connection to or to identify with womanhood in order for our voices to be heard.

This goes double for brown and dark skinned Black women and femmes even more. Challenge the systems that make it so darker Black women and femmes are barred from or have restricted access on exploring, embracing, and being seen feminine or women but also challenge the views and associations that being masculine or having a close and intimate relationship with manhood as a darker skinned Black woman/femme is inherently violent, inherently angrier, and inherently unattractive.

Last but not least darker skinned Black women and femmes who are plus sized and present as masculine, should not be anyone's epitomy of what violent, dangerous, or aggressive looks like. Biases like those directly contribute to systematic oppression against fat Black women/femmes on daily basis. They don't exist in a vacuum and should not be taken lightly.

Ultimately Black women and femmes having femininity, the right to identify or be seen as women stripped from us by white people and white supremacy, does not mean make masculinity unaccessible to us, or that presenting as masculine doesn't have its own prejudices and biases to dismantle, or that masculinity is a prison to us or our only viable option. If you're not advocating for and protecting all Black women and femmes than your activism, allyship, actions, and words, are empty.

[bonefall]

Bones, I am the sleep-concerned Anon.

In a futile effort to get you TO GO TO SLEEP (I'm begging you-)

I WILL ASK QUESTIONS! (And then will you get sleep-)

Where will Frostfur's scars be?

Ideas:

"Frostfur has scars littering her frost-white pelt. Once arcs over the bridge of her nose while another nicks her ear. The scars are deep and while her pelt is considered dull, her scars are not."

2. Is Thistleclaw considered Gender none-conforming? Because he seems to show a lot of Molly-coded behaviours: aggression, protection etc.

3. If the Mi of the litter was slacking on their duties how would the Clan react?

4. Is it obvious if a kit is Meewa?

There's a lot in here so I'm going to gloss over the Frostfur stuff, I have a bunch of other asks here asking about her

But "Is Thistleclaw considered gender-nonconforming?"

No, he's a pretty good example of what aggression looks like for toms. Thistleclaw is notoriously passive-aggressive towards his Clanmates, but frothing-at-the-mouth contemptuous of outsiders. That's what's wanted of Ssuf-gender cats-- that they're 'good' clanmates, and 'uphold' the duties needed of a good border-patroller.

(Of course, we know that Thistle Law, an ideology named after him, is so destructive that it's why Frostfur ended up getting killed, and would have plunged the Clan into endless bloodshed. But that's political ideology-- not completely unrelated, but distinctly different concepts.)

"Ssuf" gender could be easier to understand if you keep in mind that the role is to encourage tom-assigned kits to serve the Clan in a specific role. They're the first defense, cats who keep borders secure and inform the camp of what is, and what isn't. They 'should' be 'passive' to their clanmates the same way a red stag is 'passive' to a doe, or a lion is 'passive' towards its own pride.

None of the three genders are directly analogous to our idea of "masculine" and "feminine," none of them are meant to be "demiure." It is a Battle Culture, everyone is a Warrior in some way. The roles also aren't nearly as 'rigid' as some people seem to think they're supposed to be, no one is a perfect stereotype of their gender in any society and you don't have to perfectly display every single specific trait of it.

Tigerstar is also a good example of what a Tom should look like in clan culture, as is Whitestorm.

Is it obvious if a kitten is Meewa?

At birth? Usually no, unless they were born with extra toes or were a suspected fading kit.

It typically becomes obvious in childhood, when they display natural leadership traits (typically being the ones to come up with new games), connection to StarClan, and wisdom. That was how Poppyfrost's Meewa-gender was discovered.

How does a Clan react if a Mi starts to slack in their duties?

How do you respond to any situation of child neglect? A Mi is a primary parent.

If there is a Ba, they're typically encouraged to step up and parent the kittens. Rainflower as an example-- she was condemned immediately by BB!RiverClan and it was expected that Shellheart needed to do what Rainflower wasn't. Fallowtail, another queen in the nursery at the time, also stepped in to make sure Stormkit was fed.

A situation like Sparkpelt, who was only the Mi because her mate Hollylark died, is met with a lot more sympathy. Duststripe jumped in to help care for the kittens immediately, Squirrelflight fought against death itself to come back and comfort her apprentice. Situations of grief and depression are not condemned like situations of abuse.

[trans-wojak]

Hello! I find your posts interesting and I'm a transmed myself, so I wanted to bring up something I've noticed about tucutes and the non-binary labels.

As we all know, cisgender transphobes claim being trans is a choice. But what happened to more people being offended by this statement?

Due to new mainstream media with tucutes and non-binary labels populating and taking over actual trans spaces, more people now think gender is a choice, because of tucutes. If people can acknowledge that transphobes think gender is a choice, then why can't people see past the non-binary façade and the tucute ideology spitting the same theme? Tucutes have the same beliefs as the oppressors, and their appearance in mainstream media lures cis people into thinking they're trans and stretching the 'being trans is a choice' theme, while also bringing more hate to the community because of their appearance.

Tucutes are our oppressors in disguise as the oppressed. Their whole non-binary scheme is to keep them in the community to try fitting in while breaking off actual transsexuals. They're on a mission to make LGBT labels infinite and meaningless, taking over certain spaces- trans, lesbian, etc. All the while indoctrinating people that don't have a mind of their own and guilt tripping people into believing them. They're confused, and they're confusing others. The future is headed in the wrong direction with their plotting.

I as a Gen Z notice how the ideology of tucutes is to rebel and express their spite for social norms while feeling unique. They 'reclaim' slurs that aren't meant for them to feel like they're winning against their enemies. And they take over on TikTok and act like they were victims of their past transmed ideology. Saying transmed ideology made them dysphoric. If they need certain ideology to be dysphoric and another ideology makes them not feel dysphoric, then visibly they're contradictory, and therefore trenders.

Yes this exactly true, nonbinary and transphobes share the same belief system; that trans healthcare is just cosmetic body modification and not a medical need, they just believe in diff results: one believes it should be banned indefinitely, the other thinks it should be freely handed out to anyone who wants it.

They think gender dysphoria is socially created, just like transphobes. That you can just use mental gymnastics to ignore the male gender is associated with having male sexual characteristics in biology, it’s not a made up social concept and no amount of “you are valid as a man even if you are entirely female!” will magically change the fact the human brain sees sexual characteristics as either male or female even without socialisation.

Fence sitters now accuse transsexuals of being wrong for wanting to alter our sex and NOT just using stupid terms like “I identify as”. Like, non binary isn’t even gender non conforming majority of the time.

It’s confused many transsexual men and women into thinking if they don’t fit gender roles, they aren’t real men or women. It’s confused butch lesbians into thinking because they aren’t subscribing to gender roles and like the same sex, they mustn’t be real women. Like talk about non binary being the new third sexist gender role lmao.

[cowboyjen68]

Hi Jen,

My sister is a butch like you and she works on a farm. I love her to pieces even though we have polar opposite personalities- I'm chatty and outgoing, while she's very reserved and prefers being outdoors to big social gatherings. It makes me happy to see you living so well and enjoying your life, especially because I can see through you a glimpse of what her future could look like decades from now, and I know that there's a path to that kind of adulthood out there waiting for her. It's really lovely to see someone who has done it already. Do you have any advice on how I can support my sister through whatever comes up in the future? Sometimes I feel like I can't understand her the way she needs.

best wishes from anonymous

Thank you for all of those kind words. I am happy in so many ways and much of that is due to my comfortability in being butch and my gratefulness for being a lesbian and out and content with my attraction to women. It certainly took some time to get to where I am in life.

My big sister is 20 years older and straight. She is what some people call gender non conforming in some ways and in others ways she is not. She was my hero growing up because she did what she wanted and how she wanted. If she wanted to put on a full face of make up and get wine drunk and go horseback riding with the girls, she did it. When boots and bedazzeled bell bottoms were no longer in style she doubled down and made a matching purse and belt.

She was the first person to see the Tomboy in me, or at least the first to acknowledge it. She gave me my first "cowboy " play set, my first cowboy hat and she never hesitated to give me "boy" tasks like carrying heavy things or climbing on a newly purchased auction pony to see if it was "rideable" (it was not-- I have scars).

My point is, sisters can be an immense source of recognition for our unique personalities and needs. Butch lesbian sisters often still want that sister connection and time to bond. Sisters know most things about us if there is a good relationship so it is nice to just "be" without pretense of how we "are supposed to act" or how we are often expected to behave as butches. She can just be butch, natural and comfortable, without performing or being concerned she is too much or not enough.

Let her know she is still your sister, not "man like" not "not woman enough" but your sister and you share that unique connection sisters share and her butchness does not detract from that. It is a part of her. Her reality. And you love it about her because it is entwined in her existence. Don't dwell on it or constantly remind her she is butch. She knows. Everyone knows. It is nice to just be. And be with someone who knows all about you and loves you just for you.

You might never understand how she relates to others as a butch or exactly what she contends with being perceived in a way only butch women experience, but you do understand how women are put under pressure to follow the expectations of any given culture.

If your friends (or hers) say dumb stuff like "i wish I was a lesbian, dating butches would be easier" when trying to relate to her, or worse, things like "why do you try to look like a man?" gently but firmly correct them. Tell them why that is just not nice and makes pretty much everyone uncomfortable, butch or not.

It sounds like you love her and have a special bond. Knowing her sister wants her to succeed just as she is with no expectations or narrow roles to follow is a great gift you are giving her.

[lumberjackloverboy-moved]

gnc transmascs need to be there for gnc transfem people. for masc nbs and butch trans women and transfems who wear beards and don't change their voices, for trans women who dress and act in ways that cis womanhood says are wrong. gnc transmascs need to be there for our sisters and siblings, for girlfags and boydykes, for the gender non-conforming and genderqueer. in a cis society with rigid ideas of gender and gender roles, we only have each other, and it is our responsibility to love each other

[autolenaphilia]

Misandry is not real part 2

Transandrophobia bloggers turning into outright misandry believers seems to be a thing. This is another example. Like they say that "transmisandry/transphobia" doesn't imply the existence of misandry/androphobia, but apparently it does. I literally found this via a link from the same blogger's "transandrophobia faq". This blogger just calls it antimasculism instead.

This is literally just the concept of misandry rebranded, as ey admits farther down:

"It exists as an alternative term to “misandry”, which has been heavily co-opted by anti-feminists, from it’s original use by pro-feminist men to describe the ways in which the patriarchy and gender roles harm men."

So yeah, antimasculism literally trying to make the concept of misandry palatable by re-branding. And it's use for feminist theory is doubtful, because as defined here it's hopelessly vague.

"Men and masculine people" refers to anyone who identifies as a man or with masculinity; see the concept of masculine of center"

Like this is literally the justly mocked "women and femmes" but masc, lol. Antimasculism is apparently a kind of oppression that affects cis men, trans men, non-binary people, gnc women, which is a wide net of people with different positions in the patriarchy and issues. Hell you don't even need to be masculine to be affected, "it also affects non-men and non-masculine people."

It's simultaneously vague and yet essentializing, positioning anyone "masculine" as having the same interests, affected by the same oppression.

The lens of there being some bias against men and masculinity in a patriarchy is weird and I don't think holds any water.

The examples of "antimasculism" this text brings up describe real problems but I don't think they are best explained by some kind of oppression against masculinity and men. It describes things that are already accounted for by basic feminist theory, and the analytical lenses of patriarchy and (trans)misogyny.

For example it mentions butchphobia as a form of antimasculism. But describing it as part of a general "antimasculist" oppression doesn't make much sense. Butch women's masculinity is disdained, but that's not because masculinity in general is seen as bad. That oppression is instead grounded in the patriarchal expectation that women should be feminine, marry men and have children. This is why butch lesbians are especially hated by our society (especially trans butch lesbians), and why trans women are exiled from womanhood because we don't have wombs. This is basic (trans)misogyny and the gender essentialism that upholds it.

The other examples of antimasculism are even weirder, lumping some very disparate things together. "Transandrophobia" is of course also "antimasculism".But it adds even more shit to the list.

For example, it sees men feeling limited by the masculine gender role and forced into "toxic, patriarchal masculinity" is also "antimasculism". The post lists things like "Masculine people being seen as inherently violent, unable to be soft or caring" and "Masculine people being pressured to not discuss their emotions or issues, or show any vulnerability except for specific circumstances/relationships" as antimasculism. It also has "Gender non-conformity from men and masculine people being heavily criticized (often accompanied by accusations of predatory behavior)" as an example of antimasculism (you might have alarm bells ringing about what is included in the antimasculism concept going off right now, and you are right, but we'll get to that later).

I have expressed my doubts about the term toxic masculinity before, but that's not that relevant. But there are so many problems with this framing. Like, this kind of pressure to adhere to the uncomfortable parts of masculinity usually isn't directed at "masculine people" in general, but men in particular.

But the bigger question is: Isn't this the opposite of antimasculism? It's people, but especially men being oppressed for not being masculine, or feeling uncomfortable with aspects of masculinity. They are not oppressed for being masculine, but for being unmasculine or feminine.

It's a sign of how over-stuffed the concept of antimasculism is. It sees gnc women and gnc men being oppressed and tries to explain this in terms of some bias against masculinity. It's not masculinity, but gender nonconformity that is the basis of oppression here.

All while basic feminist theory explains this as men being expected to be masculine and women are expected to be feminine, in order to reproduce the patriarchal system. Women are expected to be feminine and be mothers, and men are expected as part of hegemonic masculinity to use violence to control women (cis or trans) and various other dissenters such as gay or otherwise gnc men.

Another example the text uses shows the basic problem with the idea of antimasculism. "Black and brown masculinity being seen as extra threatening and dangerous, and being seen as lesser than white masculinity." Isn't this explained better by racism rather than some bias against men and masculinity? Because you know, white masculine men don't experience this, which they logically would if it was some oppression against manhood and masculinity.

And this shows the basic problem with any idea of misandry/antimasculism. Yes, men are oppressed. But it is not on the basis of them being male. It is due to things like racism (especially anti-black racism), homophobia, transphobia or ableism. Some men are unfairly and disproportionally seen as physically and sexually threatening to (white) women. But it is black men and mentally ill or otherwise neurodivergent men. (I discuss how autistic men are targeted by mainstream incel discourse in this post)

It's not men in general, which would be the case of antimasculism/misandry was real. It's instead certain men who are oppressed and viewed with suspicion and disdain, due to transphobia, homophobia, ableism and racism. And the oppression of other "masculine people" are better explained by (trans)misogyny (in the case of butch women, cis or trans, or butch transfems in general) or transphobia and nbphobia.

But I'm not done yet, because that's not all the oppression that is thoughtlessly included in "antimasculism". Remember those alarm bells I talked about earlier? They were justified:

"Transfeminine people and others perceived as men also have antimasculism used against them, due to their perceived proximity to masculinity."

Of course we fucking get "transmisogyny is actually misandry" too. i have written extensively about this in a previous post. But I'll explain it again. I have been critical up to this point, but genuinely dispassionate, but this is personal and makes me rage.

When you stop seeing us transfems as oppressed by misogyny and instead affected by your antimasculism/misandry concept of oppression towards men, because we are misgendered as men, you are essentially continuing that misgendering and transmisogyny that you claim to just describe.

It is a rhetoric that lumps in transfems with men and claim we suffer from the same oppression.

It does this by boiling down transmisogyny to how people perceive and interpersonal interactions with transfems, instead of a systemic oppression that makes us an oppressed class that has little in common with cis men (which we would have to be for this misandry/antimasculism framing to make any sense).

It gives transmisogynists too much credit, takes them at their word instead of looking at the effects of their actions. And their transmisogyny only hurts transfems. Men are not harmed by their actions. Men are not being shut out from public spaces by being denied the use of the bathroom or changing rooms, transfems are.

It might be phrased in terms of safeguarding "real women" from "predatory men", but that only means transfems. Like transmisogynists like Posie Parker are fine with men going into women's bathrooms with guns if they are there to kill trans women.

When transmisogynist of the radfem type talk about "men" or "males" in negative terms, they often mean transfems. Like how else can you read your average "gender critical" blog when it's 99% explicit transmisogyny about how trans women are bad, interspersed with the occasional general statement that "men are trash". In the context of the blog it's clear that the "men" the blogger hates are transfems.

A lot of people who are against terfs base their idea of them on stereotypes of man-hating rabid unshaven feminists from 50 years ago. But I have written elsewhere that the real problem with "terfs" is not that they hate men, but that they hate women.

The whole thing about trans women being "perceived as men" also ignores how transmisogyny often takes the form of a violent degendering. We are seen as failures both at being men and women, trash in human form, an "it" that it is fine to do violence against.

Transfems are not treated like cis men and claiming that is itself misgendering. Seeing our oppression as being due to us being "perceived as men" is calling us men with extra steps. We are not hated for any perceived maleness, but for our womanhood and femininity.

Fuck your attempts to convince people misandry is real, whether you call it that or not. And especially fuck your attempts to explain transmisogyny with it.

[positivityforlesbians]

It's not worth it to be looking the right amount of masculine without being seen as "weird" by people (so, taking T) when the reality is passing as a man will make other lesbians and bi women believe you're just a boring possibly sexist straight man in the most average straight relationship. In resume, a nightmare, the thought alone is dissuasive. I will be my best gender-non-conforming self as a proud lesbian woman. Be that representation you needed when you were younger and that you still need to have today. I don't want to erase all traces of my non-conformance just because it will make others more comfortable. For us gnc women the gender rebellion is not femininity and so shouldn't be expected as femininity, a shift in that would not feel right. Femininity was always expected of us, and considering that being masculine would make us be perceived as gender-conforming had we chosen to physically look like men (beard, flat chest, etc) then we want none of it. ✨

Our difference in presentation materialises itself in the fact we are leaning masculine, that is the natural order of things. There is pride in being visible, literally visible, in the eyes of strangers in the street seeing you in a same-sex relationship. It can be dangerous but it can also be an act of courage, of strength, it is us the younger generations who have to keep the fight our elders have so bravely lead. If homophobes are internally offended by seeing us holding hands and kissing, or alone as a butch, let them be. Whether dating a femme, a butch or a chapstick lesbian, we want them to see we are not in straight relationships, this will never be us, we exist and our existence is normal yet different than theirs. We don't need to erase ourselves, to on surface fit the heteronormative norms. Honour your lesbian masculinity, be proud of who you are, of what you represent, of the influential role we have and always will have in the lgbt community but also for women altogether. Without lesbian masculinity, without butches, the world wouldn't be as vibrant or interesting. Do not ever let lesbophobes persuade you into abandoning this behind you, there is no "glow up" after that, it's you, your body, your culture. "Butch" is the most beautiful identity you can have, it always was in you, strong roots, ever since you were born. 💖