#which is understandable because of the way trans women are treated here

[lady-lessobian]

.

[sciderman]

Sometimes i remember a comics moment i randomly came across somewhere, where Sam Wilson mentiones a musical and Steve Rodgers says he doesn't like musicals, to whitch Sam goes "Guess that means you really are straight" and even tho i don't care about Cap America or the Avengers, the moment stuck in me for that quote by Sam. And like....Sci, any ideas if straight men actually don't like musicals or is that bullshit?

actually i think i know more gay men who hate musicals than i know straight men who hate musicals. i've had a drag queen stop me point blank when i was about to sing a barbra streisand song, and i know so many gays who pointedly hate abba. so based on my experience i think the inverse is true. most of the straight men i know are kind of impartial about musicals, but gay men? hate.

my theory is that a lot of gay men don't want to fall into stereotypes, maybe. but thaaaaat's just a theory! a gay theory.

[txttletale]

genuine question--would you mind clarifying why the use of trans lesbian is bad in reference to a trans person who is a lesbian? am i missing some context? i tried googling but i got mostly just a lot of vile garbage. nw if you're done talking about this topic, that is understandable. have a nice day (saluting emoji which i dont have but please imagine it here)

sure. 'trans lesbian' is, like, a compound word that means specifically 'a trans woman who is a lesbian', and not just 'someone who is trans and a lesbian', in the same way that idk a 'little finger' isn't just 'a finger that is small'. & obviously i am all for recognizing that labels are just labels, that words are not the things themselves, but 1. this is not, like, some weird backformation or super restrictive definition that people make up to mean arguments, it's how that word is used in common practice by queer orgs, media outlets, the UN, and 2. i think that there is context here that makes it pretty important to be extremely clear about who is and isn't a trans lesbian in this sense.

the context is that trans lesbians (ie, trans women, who are lesbians) are like at the center of the hurricane of transphobia across the world right now. ray blanchard, the fucking pioneer of modern pseudoscientific transmisogyny, specifically singles out the 'autogynophiles' (as opposed to the 'homosexual transsexuals, who are trans women attracted to men') as dangerous perverts. TERF's most hateful transmisogynistic caricatures and canards of trans women as dangerous sexual predators who are threat to Women's Spaces are implicitly about the Trans Lesbian. it's a term that sent the entire transphobia industrial complex into overdrive when it was used in some UN org's tweet:

these headlines are not about Trans people who are also Lesbians--both these articles are filled with all the usual bile about how trans women are really sexually predatory men who want to infilitrate womanhood. neither of the people writing these articles would like leslie feinberg for sure, but they also wouldn't think of hir as a Dangerous Predator Infilitrationg Women's Spaces. & so when the trans lesbian is the fucking like cultural boogeyman that politicians are determined to performatively target and punish, i think that using that language to describe people who aren't transfem is diluting our ability to talk about this kind of transmisogyny.

& i mean like, this is not just an abstract concern, right, because the instant that i initially took issue with was someone essentially saying 'wow, why do you think that people who obsess over SBB specifically and The 80s more generally as the end-all be-all of Queerness and Lesbianhood tend towards a transmisogynist view of thoes things when leslie feinberg is literally a trans lesbian.' like it is explictly and obviously a rhetorical sleight of hand which is why i treated that ask with the contempt it deserved.

[spaghettioverdose]

Sure maybe you wanna say that the "suck my dick and stop being a baeddel" copypasta anons were originally sent by a couple of trolls or whatever but the amount of people I see defending them is very clear fucking proof that the sentiment exists. There is a lot of preaching about trans unity right now, but as is often the case, if someone demands unity while refusing to do even the bare minimum for you (in this case disavowing the horrifyingly misogynistic posts and calling out some of the people who maintain such positions instead of defending them) and only call for unity when you speak out against their abuse, then they're not looking for unity. They want you to shut the fuck up. You never see these same people calling for unity when there's a harassment campaign against trans women. You don't see them defending trans women when our words are misinterpreted in as bad of a way as possible.

And before someone accuses me of being a baeddel terf or whatever: I am not saying we need some kind of transfem separatist movement or that trans unity is impossible or undesirable. I am not saying that transmascs are doomed to be violent misogynists. I do have some very nice transmasc mutuals (all of which uncoincidentally are communists lol) who I do appreciate and feel actual solidarity with because they aren't transmisogynists and because I can expect them to have the backs of the transfem community whe the newest transmisogynistic harassment campaign starts on this dogshit website.

A growing problem on here is the continuous dilution and rejection of feminism and even some of the most basic feminist positions in favour of positions that would be perfectly at home in a 2016 antifeminist mra youtuber's videos if it wasn't for the pseudo-progressive tone of the message. It is what has lead to "you should shut up about transmisogyny and suck my dick", a position championed by "genderpunks" and transandrophobia truthers. The drift from understanding the basic premise that we live in a patriarchal and misogynist society to "well, men have it bad too, so who's to say what the real gender dynamics are like" and even "men have it bad too, specifically because they are men" has erased a lot of progress on this website and allowed this kind of thing to happen.

The way to close the gap and achieve trans unity is not to ask for silence from trans women speaking against the abuse done to us or to pretend that gender dynamics do not exist politically, but to take steps towards solidarity with us and speak out against transmisogynists and to push back against antifeminist rhetoric.

This post, obviously is aimed at people who are genuinely interested in trans unity, not people who scold others about trans unity whenever trans women have a problem with the way we are treated.

[necronatural]

Context on Project Moon discourse

I did some digging and watched some internet slapfights between Korean users, and collected as much context as humanly possible, trying to avoid hearsay where I can:

Misogynistic dudes start complaining about how sexless and non-waifu-female-heavy the game is, feeling the skimpy Sinclair outfit with the thotty little collar VS the fully covered Ishmael outfit is pointed feminist jeering (a law Hawkeye Initiative). Korean anti-feminists are really sensitive to pointed feminist jeering. More on that in a bit

Upon learning the identity artist is male, they trawl the rest of the staff to prove their stupid-ass theory.

They latch onto the lead CG artist, who has tweeted about feminism before.

Project Moon receives countless threats and people marching on their office IRL demanding to speak to the CEO.

The resulting hate campaign leads to Project Moon firing the lead artist for violation of contract; it was specifically requested by the company that all users delete political statements and controversial topics before joining, and the tweets the incels are using seem to prove that the worst case scenario for not adhering to the request has come to pass.

The thing is, she did delete the tweets.

This user has screencapped incels scrambling to justify their belief the game is for man-haters, including a statement that he had dug up deleted tweets. These are old records.

These are the retweets, all made before joining the company (but again, the policy was that the tweets like this should be scrubbed). Most of them are just being catty. The most extreme statements are a scathing satire even a child could understand, and some general feminist sentiments which are not incendiary in any way. It seems they were screencapped to cement a pattern of passionate feelings on feminism.

In Korea, feminism is considered a wedge issue, which means basic activism becomes extremely politically charged. Think of it like how trans issues are being treated in America at the moment, or how "Critical Race Theory" was a wedge issue like 2 years ago. Nevertheless, the most hateful statements in these tweets are not "feminist", but rather annoyance at misogyny, and pretty obviously jokes.

The tweet that the incels are latching onto here states "if being a feminist makes me Megalia, I am Megalia. If being against patriarchy makes me anti-social, I am anti-social". Megalia was a scumbag leftist radfem group originating from Korea's 4chan (anonymous messageboards). It was bad enough that banning gay slurs created a splinter group. Megalia was well-known for mirroring misogynistic behaviours back onto men. They were reviled. An actress lost her job for wearing a T-shirt this group sold, even though the funds were going to supporting women seeking legal actions. Association with Megalia was reputation poison.

Notice I refer to them in the past tense, because Megalia shut down in 2017. The tweet was in 2018. You could not get any more obvious that the statement being made was "you can insult me by calling me Megalia, but I still believe in feminism". There is no association with this incendiary group.

Incels "supported" their argument with an image of Yi Sang holding a vial in basically one of the only 2 ways you can hold a vial, calling it a reference to 🤏, an emoji used as the Megalia logo interpreted to mean "men have small penises". This insane interpretation is being used to cement the whole company as misandrist.

Therefore: Project Moon fired their lead artist even though she didn't violate her contract because insane incels did a "how dare you say we piss on the poor" bad faith misinterpretation of deleted tweets in order to justify their belief that Project Moon is a man-hating company, and as a man-hating company deserves to be annihilated, leading to threats to staff.

The artist for Leviathan later stated that Project Moon pushed the comic forward with no buffer, and when the schedule became unbearable, they just cancelled it. They were told there was an issue with production (supported by the fact the company dropped the translation in favour of focusing on the game), but this news has made the artist pessimistic about the company's treatment of their art team. (Update: deleted, with a statement they feel they felt attached to their debut work, and struggle with feeling like they ran away.)

Here's the artist Vellmori's twitter if you would like to support them through this period.

[radykalny-feminizm]

I had the dubious pleasure of learning about the most insane and disgusting person I've heard about in a long time, and I don't want to be alone with this knowledge, so.

This is Christian Weston Chandler (aka Christine aka Chris Chan)

He's an internet personality who was once popular in certain online circles because of his absolutely unhinged behavior and susceptibility to being trolled.

A handful of facts:

He's an extreme incel who, for most of his life, desperately tried to find a partner while claiming that he only needs a woman for sex

At one point he paid a woman so he could rape her

He created and published sexually explicit drawings of female bodies on the internet, including those of women he knew in real life who, of course, did not consent to such things

In addition to being a misogynist, he's also a racist and homophobe. In his own words: if I could have it my way, I'd make it illegal and forbidden to have homo men; women are safe

Surprise, one day he started identifying as a woman and an ally of the LGBT community. He assumed a new identity solely because he thought it would give him sexual access to lesbians. But hey, TRAs keep saying that such things don't happen, so we're good

He thought he was able to magically grow a vagina and showed off his infected taint gash as his new vagina

If you think that's already pretty bad, the worst was yet to come. In 2021 he was arrested for raping his 79-year-old dementia-ridden mother. That's right. If you've ever wondered about the embodiment of evil and degeneration, here it fucking is. The justice system didn't buy into his bullshit identity and treated him as a male. Unfortunately, he was released from jail in March 2023, and in August the same year his incest charge was dismissed as a result of his lawyer having filed for an autism disorder deferred disposition. Which is fucking outrageous and bullshit because hello?? Autism doesn't make you want to rape your own elderly mother??

I don't even have a proper conclusion to all of this. No words in any language can express my absolute contempt and disgust for this moid.

And for TRAs who don't understand why women don't want "trans women" in their spaces - this is why.

[doubleca5t]

Bored tumblr radfem here to take the bait- What kind of gender feelings were you having? Magical ineffable girly feelings about wanting to wear spinny dresses and play with dolls? You know what gender feelings I was having as a young woman- Feeling afraid of the men sexually assaulting me. Wanting to be seen as a whole human being with interests and ambitions. Alienation as a gnc lesbian which made me want to chop my tits off. Those are the gender feelings I had. Very curious to hear about yours

Ok to answer your question, the gender feelings I was getting from since I was a little kid were along the lines of:

"I wish I could have been born a girl, I don't really like being a boy that much"

"women's clothes are so much better than than men's clothes, I wish I was a girl so I could wear them"

"My female friends kind of act like I'm 'one of the girls' but my male friends never treat me like I'm 'one of the guys'. I like this arrangement. I don't want to fit in with the boys."

"I wish my face was more androgynous and I wasn't as tall, that way I could dress up as a girl and everyone would be totally convinced"

"I can't stand romance stories. Unless it's a romance between two girls. Those rule. Really wish there were more of them 😔"

"I love women but I don't really relate to how cishet men talk about women. For some reason I *really* relate to how lesbians and bisexual women talk about women though."

I think you get the idea.

With that out of the way, there's kind of a second question underlying your initial question which is "what the fuck do you think is so fun about being a woman? being a woman is fucking terrible." And I think that question is worth answering as well since it's probably something a lot of people are legitimately curious about.

The short answer is that, in my experience, "womanhood" as a concept is broad and varried enough that different people are going to get different things out of it, and while all women are oppressed and traumatized by patriarchy, the way they process that trauma is VERY far from uniform.

I know lots of cis women who've been through similar things to what this anon has described, but they haven't come out of it with nearly the same perspective. They recognize that just because *they* can never be comfortable with the role that society prescribed to them, that doesn't mean that no one else can or should be comfortable with that role. They recognize that you can take joy in the aesthetics and performance of a lot of things that are stereotypically feminine while still asserting your value as a person and refusing to put up with patriarchal bullshit. And perhaps most importantly, they recognize that the notion that someone can choose their gender is not contradictory to the idea that people should not be forced into a rigidly defined gender role. There are a lot of trans men who want to look like femboys or dress like flamboyant glam-rockers. There are a lot of trans women who don't give a shit about fashion or makeup and just want to be comfortable, or aspire to look like a capital d Dyke.

And like.... Idk isn't there something freeing about that? The idea that you can be whatever gender you want in whatever way you want, patriarchy be damned. That seems like the kind of world I want to live in.

So yeah anon, I understand why you view womanhood the way you do. For someone with your experiences, it makes a lot of sense. But I don't think your perspective has to be mutually exclusive to mine. I want to live in a world where women aren't forced to present a certain way from birth, don't live in constant fear of abuse and assault by men, and aren't belittled and marginalized at every turn. I just happen to also think that the idea of biologically determined gender is just as much bullshit as the idea of systemically enforced gender roles.

[spacelazarwolf]

(to your knowledge) are there any genuinely trans affirming versions of ra/di/cal feminism? I've seen a few people here and there on the internet saying Their version of it is trans inclusive but I haven't had the time to do any extensive research..

imo no. ra/di/cal feminism relies on the idea that there is a Victim Group and an Oppressor Group. for traditional ra/df/ems, those groups are based on agab. "females" are victims and "males" are oppressors, and these are immutable categories. if you are female, you are and will always be a victim and nothing you can ever do will change that. if you are a male, you are and always will be an oppressor and nothing you can ever do will change that.

for neo ra/df/ems (tirfs, whatever you want to call them), those immutable categories are "man" and "woman", or sometimes "man" and "nonman." if you are a woman or "nonman", you are and will always be a victim and nothing you can ever do will change that. if you are a man, you are and always will be an oppressor and nothing you can ever do will change that. this ideology appeals to a lot of groups like trans and queer people who were afab that don't align with manhood and also to trans women and trans femmes, because those are groups who understandably have a lot of resentment toward the patriarchy for the trauma it's caused them.

but when you look at the other side of the constructed binary, you have a lot of trans and intersex people (whether that's trans men, trans people who pursue masculinizing transition, trans people who align with manhood regardless of agab, intersex people who choose to align with manhood or are forcibly aligned with manhood because of their intersex traits that are perceived as "male", or trans people who were amab that are forcibly aligned with manhood because of the way they present) who simply do not hold any societal power and are in fact profoundly oppressed under the patriarchy who are now being labeled as oppressors simply because of the way they identify or they way they're forcibly aligned. this can be particularly traumatizing for trans people like me who have a lot of deep trauma from the several decades being perceived as and treated as a woman/"female", because our trauma is usually dismissed as "misdirected" or "not as bad." this incongruence between lived experiences of oppression and perceived status as oppressor further marginalizes these groups; they continue to experience oppression in general society because of their status as "other", but are also turned away from safe spaces because of their perceived status as oppressors, and this leads to high levels of isolation, depression and anxiety, violence, and suicide.

ra/di/cal feminism also holds the idea that misogyny is the one true/most important form of oppression. it asserts that all other forms of bigotry stem from misogyny, so the priority should be to overthrow the patriarchy. which sounds like a noble goal in theory, but in practice what it really looks like is a lot of white women wanting to flip patriarchy on its head so they're the ones in charge instead of white men. and historically white women have had an integral role in maintaining white supremacy, so it's understandable why a lot of people of color, including women of color, reject ra/di/cal feminism.

this presents itself in neo ra/di/cal feminism as well when discussions surrounding gender based oppression and transphobia fail to take race into account. trans men are perceived as transitioning into an Oppressor Group, therefore they must be transitioning into an easier and more privileged life. but black and brown trans men report experiencing more violence after they transition. white trans women's voices are prioritized over trans men of color because one is seen as the Victim and the other as the Oppressor, which results in white voices and narratives being prioritized in trans discussions, and does not take into account the way white women have historically used their whiteness as a weapon against black and brown men.

so in conclusion of this mini essay, i argue that there can never be a form of ra/di/cal feminism that is truly accepting of all trans people because the mandatory binary way of thinking is incompatible with queer and trans existence, and because it is not structured to take race and ethnicity into account which makes it inaccessible to racial and ethnic minorities. intersectional feminism that challenges binaries and targets the system instead of individuals or groups of people will always be more inclusive and successful.

[zyrlovesmizu]

y’know I respect a fan’s choice about how they want to view mizu but tiny ramble about it here. this isn’t any sort of discussion or ‘matter of fact’ essay, just a simple rant about headcannons about her being TRANS and her SEXUALITY.

Warning: extremely long.

Given the numerous limitations that would arise from traveling as a woman, I find it very difficult to understand why some people believe Mizu is transgender when it's obvious that she is hiding this information in order to survive. This was particularly true during the Edo period, when women were dehumanized and treated like objects because we only ever see them as a slave or working in a brothel (majority of the show at least). They were also seen having to depend on men for nearly everything, as demonstrated in the episode where the mother and daughter were left outside to freeze to death since her husband was not present to accompany them. Along with that subtle hints were presented to us that show how comfortable she is when in touch with her femininity like a few moments in the episode where she came back to Swords-father Eiji’s hut. Though, I can definitely see why people would label her as transmasc with the theory that she must’ve grown so accustomed to this sort of lifestyle, she’d perhaps just become transmasc in the later episodes. We’ll never know!

Next, not gonna lie, I’m insanely guilty of viewing Mizu as a bisexual women despite feeling that she is leaning more toward heterosexuality in terms of her sexuality. I have the biggest fattest crush on her so I have no problem stating how much I'm crying and wailing over this. Like c’mon, let's be real, I guarantee that 98% of simps are female, and I’m sure every single one of us has mentioned once that we can all treat her better than Mikio and Taigen. Speaking of Taigen, I HAVE to admit that him and Mizu do have the best chemistry compared to everyone in the show. It’s clear in the way she pulls him away from those shooting arrows, knocks him out becahse she fears for his safety if he follows, saving him from Fowler's castle even though she could have easily just left him to die and slain Fowler, etc. At first, I would’ve assumed she’d have trauma with men especially after Mikio’s betrayal which might’ve led her to stray away from any romantic attraction with men—or anybody in general. Honestly, I have dedicated my time to search for ANY hint (ok not rlly) that she might be attracted to women, but the only time I ever see her become flustered by one is when she appears to be taken aback by the prostitues she tried to ask for directions to the Shindo Dojo. Plus, there were only two occasions where she interacted with Akemi that people use to automatically ship them which is when she saw Akemi in her carriage (not sure of the specific name) and pinned her down in Madame Kaji's brothel. I can’t imagine them as a couple in later episodes, something I’m been dying to see. Though, it’s hard to determine what was running in her mind during the scene where they both stole glances at each other, especially since there was no sort of indication in her inner thoughts or emotions, so it’s normal to assume the above as well. (Despite that, I’m still rooting for AT LEAST bisexual Mizu because for the love of god and for the sake of all of the gay women here, PLEASE. /j)

I may make jokes about these headcannons like playfully hating on the TaiMizu ships. All in all, I’m sure the fans are mature enough to understand that these are meant to be lighthearted jokes and that people interpret a character and show in various ways and it’s normal! Even if I can’t comprehend the theory or feel as though it is a little too complicated/really negotiable, remember to support what you want, ship what you want, make whatever headcannons, nobody’s stopping you! Don’t be too afraid to just announce what you feel about the show. All I ask is to avoid SERIOUSLY cancelling someone just because of their own feelings and opinions. In the end, they’re stilll fictional characters (😞😞) who have no sort of physical form of any sort so do whatever, as long as it isn’t really THAT problematic in a sense (e.g. romanticising rape), go for it.

(Sorry for bringing her sexuality into this, I’m aware of how the show is definitely not centering on this and not every single thing has to be LGBTQ-related but I noice it’s something constantly brought up in the fandom. As someone whose phrasing and essay writing skills suck, I’m still learning bit by bit about how the world works in terms of differing views on things. I may not support your idea of a character but I RESPECT it! If I came off as rude, I’m sorry, remember it’s just my random midnight thoughts🙏)

[qqueenofhades]

Once you get offline, Biden’s doing ok with everyone but Republicans and racists. Unfortunately, that’s a pretty big voting bloc, but it should be manageable. More unfortunately, Harris is. Not popular. With anyone. Like, we’re talking Dan “To not have a mind is being very wasteful” Quayle levels of dissing. You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but enough women and people of color have jumped on the “Kamala’s letting The Team down” bandwagon that there’s got to be more to it than this. Any thoughts?

Yeah, uh, I don't think that's fair OR accurate, and deserves quite a bit more reflection and pushback than is implied here (since your question frames it as thinking there MUST be something wrong with her and invites me to expand on it). First off, I am not comfortable comparing the first female vice president (AND female VP of color) to empty suit Dan Quayle, and especially when there's such a disparity in their background, social perception, and accomplishments, not to mention their role in the administration. So:

"You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but -- " Okay, but how much? Are we actually assigning a weight to that and taking it into consideration, or hand-waving it aside in search of the "real" cause? Online Leftists are already disposed to irrationally dislike Kamala because of the "she's a cop!!!" business that went around during the primaries, which was likewise inaccurate and misleading, but showed how women, especially women of color, are often treated in white leftist spaces (including by leftist-identifying women). That very much WAS down to sexism, racism, and perceiving her as "shrill" or "there's just something I don't like about her." Okay, what is that? WHAT is the thing you don't like about her? Would you notice it in a male politician? Would you critique it in a male politician? If the answer is any part unclear, this needs more work and is in fact reflective of that dynamic, whether or not anyone is aware of it or thinks that's the reason why.

No, seriously. If someone professes that they "just don't like" Kamala or "there's something about her that rubs me the wrong way" or whatever else, my immediate next question would be "Why? What don't you like about her?" And keep drilling down through whatever excuses about "unlikeability" or "personality" or whatever else is offered. If this can be persuasively articulated in a way that a) exposes a substantive policy reason, b) can be differentiated from what any male vice president or other person in her position would do or what should be expected of them, and c) isn't just about "offputting vibes," then sure, we can have a discussion about that. Otherwise, yeah. That's not convincing me that it's anything other than the constant, long-running, ever-present discomfort with seeing a powerful and accomplished woman of color, who started her career prosecuting sex criminals, was the first Black woman in the Senate, and is now the first female vice president, actually state her issues and own her role.

"Enough women and people of color have jumped on the 'Kamala Is Letting the Team Down' bandwagon that there must be -- " Really? Must there? First of all, it's damn near impossible to find any Online Leftist who's willing to give Biden accurate credit for his accomplishments -- see the "Biden is bad and uninspiring and anti-trans but we should I guess vote for him anyway" rhetoric which is the closest they can possibly get to acknowledging it. (None of which is actually true!) When that's the case with the top of the ticket, it's orders of magnitude easier to project that irrational dislike and distortion onto "shrill" or "dislikable" Kamala. So who are these "women and people of color" who don't like Kamala? Are they in the room with us right now? Do they actually care about/vote for the Democrats, support their policy accomplishments, and realistically understand the progress that's been made and what remains to be done, or do they want to use Kamala as yet another convenient stick to beat the Democrats (since they won't give them accurate credit to start with?)

Even if this was true, sexism and racism somehow magically wasn't a factor (which uh, it is not) and Kamala had some terrible personality defect that was unique to her and her alone and not any of the far worse vice presidents there have been in the last 20 years alone: what is this kind of question intended to accomplish? Are we supposed to fear that by voting for Biden, we might vote for Kamala as well? Well, she was on the ticket last time too, and they won the election. Don't know what else to tell you.

[vergess]

hello do you happen to have an explanation/definition of what pinkwashing is? don't trust googlie with a term so new and it does not line up with my understanding of the terms it's made up of (-washing = covering or changing the original or true depiction, pink- = I only know this term in politics from pink-collar and I am 99% certain it does not mean the same thing here)

Oh, yeah, you're absolutely correct about it not being a pink-collar thing.

For my followers, pink-collar refers to paid work outside the home that is traditionally held by women. The "pink" refers to women, femininity, etc. Just girly things, if you will.

In pink-washing, however, the pink refers to pink triangles, a prominent symbol of queer survival after pink triangles were used to mark sexual deviants (that is, gay men and trans women).

Pink-washing is the use of "we have queer rights, unlike those barbaric savages" to justify state violence.

Right now, the term is mostly coming up in discussions of Israel. In that specific context, it refers to the fact that Israel is far and away the most progressive and well-protected place for queer people of all sorts in the middle east. Which the Israeli government often likes to point to as proof that their brutal ethnic cleansing is a "necessary force" to protect queer lives from Islamist extremism.

It's a sort of, "look, I know what I'm doing is bad, but what they're doing is way worse: look at how badly they treat their queers. Obviously I must be violent to help civilize the animals, for the sake of their queers," often while actively killing queer civilians for being for the wrong race.

Unfortunately, pink-washing is itself strong evidence that a state devalues her queer citizens, thinking of them not as vulnerable people to be protected (as the state will insist is the case), but rather as tokens to be trotted out as proof of the state's "goodness." And should any queer person defy the role of "good little token," they are inevitably and severely punished. As they say (they being in this case an Israeli sociologist whose name escapes me entirely), "A trans woman in uniform will be given medical care, but a trans woman who refuses military service will go to a men's prison."

Pink-washing is also extremely, EXTREMELY common in the U.S. though this doesn't get as much air time lately as Israeli pink-washing. But, the U.S. very regularly uses pink-washing around gay (not so much trans) rights to justify both imperial and domestic violence. Even at the per-state level, it is extremely common for people in "progressive" states to say absurd shit like, "well we treat our gays with respect, unlike Alabama!" to thought-stop themselves from noticing how miserable their lives are as a direct consequence of state action (or even state inaction to stop violence, as is often the case with capitalism and policing problems).

There's also a significant problem in Canada with their pretty solid record on queer rights being used as a counter-argument to their mistreatment of indigenous peoples. This too is pink-washing.

Pink-washing also devalues to lives and specifically the queerness of the people being targeted for violence. You know. By killing them and stuff. But also by denying that they deserve the very right to life and safety that is supposedly the mission statement.

If the entire point of pink-washed violence really was queer liberation, they would suck at that because they keep killing all the queer people they don't fucking like.

[bodycountgame]

Hello! I was a big fan of the series a while a go and it is lovely to see that you are back. I'm terribly sorry that other anons put you through a lot with the voting aspect of the game. Absolutely no one deserves death threats for a story that they are bringing to us for free. However, I am not going to lie, I always feel a bit worried when a fandom majority vote is what has long lasting effects on character life/death. It was ok when it was everyone voting with an equal effect. Now there will be a wealth gap to vote. Only people that pay can contribute. And at least where I'm from wealth looks a certain kind of way.

Since you have characters that are in a minority it feels... Bad. Maybe I'm projecting how racist and transphobic my home country is on the vote for this game. I also don't want you to feel like this is an attack on you because that is not my intent at all! I love the diversity in the love interests and it was what brought me to the game initially. I am worried that if you do a majority vote on Patreon that characters that aren't white/cis will face a harsher vote. Trans lives are in danger and I was not surprised when a nonbinary character died first. I was part of the fandom and people treated them very grossly (it actually made me step away for a bit as well). There were many options but the vocally out and proud person got the boot first. What I'm saying is I trust you more than your Patreon supporters. If the people can't all vote as one, due to the actions of some terrible people, then maybe we shouldn't vote at all

anon, i totally understand your concerns because i absolutely shared them. to be completely honest with you, i had totally misjudged which characters i thought were popular or not and watching the three non binary cast members struggle through that first vote felt Bad. my personal disappointment about ellis being the character to receive the least votes in the vote contributed in no small part to the twist in chapter 3 and their revised arc (which was Not planned when i set out writing body count hahaha). howeverrrrrr, i did learn a lot from the process.

my main motivator behind making the vote patreon exclusive was that the voters would be genuinely invested in the game and that the polling would be much harder to game or manipulate. selfishly, i also think it will reduce a certain amount of the absolute barrage of wild anons from the first time around haha!

in addition to that, though, i think its important that i reaffirm what i have said from the start: i am acutely aware that in interactive fiction in general and particularly on tumblr there is a strong preference for white male characters, and i am not here to write some kind of gross POC/women/nb slasher. as much as i want the audience to have a say in the direction the story takes, i ultimately have final say on what happens in the story that i am writing.

the main way that i intend to have oversight of the voting process is by who appears on the polls in the first place; the first poll was the last time the whole cast will be available for a vote at the same time. since ellis, one of three NB cast members, was the first character to die, i've said that neither of the other NB cast members will appear on future polls. if it's women and POC suffering in the next vote, then i'll be applying similar logic. if that means we get towards the end and we need a white boy only poll then so be it!

that said, if people cannot behave then i will simply take away their toys. although i consider the voting mechanic to be one of the things that makes body count unique and fun, i'm absolutely not above doing away with it if there are Shenanigans that spoil it, ya know?

anyway, i hope that assuages some of your concerns! sorry for another giant wall of text wow i simply cannot answer a question concisely atm

[three-maddys-in-a-trenchcoat]

You're right about trap and wrong about femboy. The former was always a slur, the latter never was. Both come from roughly the same segment of the internet but from wildly different times. Trap was ages and ages ago when "feminine person with a dick" was inherently and obviously bad to cis men. Femboy comes out of those who, many, many years later, appreciated and wanted to be feminine people with a dick. It is, at worst, kinna fetishizing of GNC men, but it it's theirs to reclaim and it does not refer to trans women and never has. In part that's actually because of the 4chan crowd's transphobia, ironically - many of them like femboys and many of those don't like trans women, so why would they refer to them with a term they consider positive? It just doesn't fit.

did you miss the part where i said i was there? where i was a victim? i'm almost 32, i saw it all happen.

this is revisionist nonsense.

you came in here to prove me wrong and then demonstrated what a "third gender" is perfectly. who, pray tell, has always been called tr*ps/femb*ys and treated as a subset of gay men? who is viciously attacked by these same people the moment they gain enough self-respect to call themselves a woman? which labels do these people immediately jump to when an AMAB character is reclaimed as trans? when have they ever looked at a feminine character with a penis and said "yeah, that's a trans woman?"they absolutely both refer to us. the claimed distinction only occurs in the fevered transphobic mind.

for the record, they have also always bashed people they call tr*ps as mentally ill, while saying that femb*ys are not (or at least, not in the same way). it's an abusive relationship designed to keep transfems from ever transitioning while they're exploited sexually ("you don't want to be mentally ill...do you? you're different from the filthy tr*nnies"). they get off on trans women being in the closet, that's what all this "failed man" and "boy wife" shit is about.

oh look, here's a "feminine man with a dick" enjoyer proving my point.

the fact that channers distinguish between the two labels is completely irrelevant because they don't have any concept of transfemininity beyond "feminine man i can exploit." their only concern is "how gay does this make *me*," not any sort of inner world that their victims might have. tr*p was just way too close to approving of transness (despite them still thinking it was gay), so femb*y came in to be a more insidious label that firmly classifies us as gay men.

please explain f*tanari/ot*konoko next. do you think all those guys who go to ot*konoko brothels here in japan are just gay boys appreciating a feminine man with a dick? those labels come from the same subcultures we're talking about here and serve the same purpose.

Daisuke Ishiwatari, a goddamn Japanese cis man who helped seed all this in the first place, figured it out and tried to correct the damage he'd done. Somehow transfems are the most eager to not understand their history of being oppressed and to preserve these systems.

are you afraid that gay/bi men will attack you? if they have a problem with this, fuck em. they helped create this mess and keep giving these labels legitimacy for their own benefit. i know who my allies are.

EDIT: sorry, i need to chill out. i just think you're wrong on this, not a bad person or anything

to quote a more eloquent friend, "femb*y exists to be tr*p but politically correct"

[transunity]

Hi! I've been reading through your blog a bit more, and I wanted to say: it seems like the core of why you are getting this pushback is your conflation of how our oppressors see us, with the language used to describe the systems of oppression we experience. You don't have to tell a trans woman that she's actually suffering misandry when someone treats her like a man. And yet, you insist on this language that many trans people, myself included, find misgendering to us and inaccurate to our experiences, despite calling yourselves "transunity." I hate to say it, because whoever runs this blog clearly thinks deeply about these issues, but it all makes me wonder if you actually care about trans unity, or if you just think you've discovered a superior language model that you're now pushing on everyone else.

I feel like there has been a misunderstanding in what we were saying. We're not claiming that all transmisogyny is actually misandry, or even that is it always rooted in misandry, and we are not forcing on anyone labels that they do not want to use.

What we are saying is that - from the experiences of various people victims of transmisogyny - some of it may be rooted in misandry, in misogyny, in misandrogyny, or in a combination of the three. Our goal is not to force a new framework on everyone, but, to the contrary, to build an understanding of the variety of trans experiences. We're not telling any individual trans woman that she has been suffering from misandry, and we're sorry that it has been interpreted in this way.

Here is the relevant excerpt of the manifesto (p. 5), for reference:

Trans women may experience misogyny (such as unwanted sexualisation for being female and trans), however, they may often experience a kind of misgendering ‘misandry’ (such as the vitriol some transphobes espouse which accuses trans women of being ‘violent males’) and ‘misandrogyny’ (such as transphobic rhetoric which centers around a trans person’s appearance being androgynous and thus not easily sortable into male or female categories

[jingerpi]

Its honestly very concerning how popular ContraPoints video on "Transtrenders" was. I want to make a post discecting it briefly because I feel the video does a disservice to young trans folk looking to learn, instead leaving them feeling unjustified in their indentitiy under the guise of some radical acceptance One of the main issues with the video as a whole is how natalie breaks down existing understandings of trans medicine as a tool to try and unseat transmedicalist talking points, and show how being trans is about personal experience and "feelings". While its important to critique transmedicalists, what she does here is undermine what many people see as the best justification for trans existence without replacing it with anything. She does this in my opinion, because she honestly doesn't have anything to replace it with, and doesn't understand the real basis for gender in the world. Saying this is all well and good, I can critique anyone for not giving good basis for thing but its no help if i don't give anything of substance to back it up either, so heres a brief explanation of why transphobia is a problem, based in actual socio-political analysis.

Patriarchy is an economic structure which has been built up across centuries of accumulated surplus value which was passed down through the eldest son of the ruling class. this is a vast over simplification, but functionally this means there are systems in place in society which privilege men, give them access to more wealth, better positions, and control over non-men. Patriarchy has grown and changed over time and held different shapes depending on the society, we no longer have eldest sons inheriting royal rule (in most places), but we continue to have men as the group with the most economic and social agency in our societies. This privilege that Patriarchs have is constituted not of some magical benefits bestowed upon them from an abstract "system" but are instead taken directly from those who are not men. More specifically, men and Patriarchs take labor and resources from those whom patriarchy considers "non-men". Reproductive labor goes unpaid, women are under privileged in political society, we often don't get choices over our bodies. This isn't merely a coincidence, but serves specifically to give men power and confer more benefits onto them. Because of this, there must be systems in place to manage who is let into the patriarchy, who can be a Patriarch.

The most universal way of doing this is by deciding whether or not someone is a man and conferring onto them certain benefits as long as they uphold this structure, and ostracizing them if they are not. They do this ostracization because if this structure is not upheld artificially through oppression of women and bullying of nonconforming men to keep the categories of man and woman or even man and non-man distinct, the privilege given to the in-group starts to fade. In the same way that "White" is an artificial construct created and upheld to facilitate racism like slavery, imperialism, housing discrimination, and unpaid labor, so too is "manhood" and "womanhood". These constructs appear to be based in existing biology, so they often go without question, but race is also based on such "biology" and that does not mean its a founded construct. The basis for both "race" and "gender" break down once you look at higher level understandings of these concepts. Not all people with xy chromosomes are men, not all people of African decent have black skin, etc etc... I could go on about the "exceptions" for quite some time but you likely know many of them already. These are categories created fundamentally to give one specific category an economic advantage and justify their oppression of those who are outside of said category. The reason we need to respect trans-ness isn't because there is something inherently justified about being transgender, nor because we just have to be really nice to everyone and treat their feelings as absolute truths. Its because the systems which confine us and define gender so rigidly exist purely to oppress and extract value from others. These borders are deeply unjustified and we need to tear them away. We do not need to justify existing outside of the borders, but instead challenge the borders in the first place. Contrapoints fails to meaningfully do this Natalie focuses almost entirely on the arguments surrounding justifications for transness and gives little thought to the justifications for patriarchy. It is treated as a default, always existing, status quo that is unquestionable. It makes me wonder how aware of it she really is, she seems to get stuck in justifying her own existence. the "Transtrenders" video focuses on a discussion between several characters where the primary issue at hand is how to justify being trans, should it be done through medicial, scientific frameworks? or should it be done from a kind and accepting view of others? She makes arguments against the former for being flawed and the latter for being unfounded, but she never actually replaces it with any critique of society, instead saying: "Okay, so what am I supposed to tell Jackie Jackson then? What am I supposed to tell the TERFs? That I'm a woman because reasons?"

"No, not even because reasons. Just because you are."

"So it's what, a leap of faith? Oh great. I'm sure that's gonna convince all the rational skeptics. Justine, it makes us sound completely delusional."

"Well Tiffany, delusion is what separates us from the animals." Which is an extremely unhelpful answer to give after tearing down what is to many, a key aspect in their reasoning for why they are justified in their identities, and while it is partially correct that trying to use one of the specific theories she outlined earlier to justify trans existence is an exercise in futility, she can't seemingly offer any alternative than some kind of "because I said so" when there ARE very good reasons to be in favor of trans acceptance, and historical reasons for our existence. In failing to do so she misleads perhaps an entire generation of trans people into thinking theres no real justification for their existence

The justification comes from understanding that the premise is false, that the forces which try to bind people to a specific societal gender role are themselves the issue.

She tries to point out that we dont need to justify transgender existence because the frameworks which hold us to cisgender existence are the real problem, but without ever talking about these cisgender standards in an actually meaningful way, instead talking abstactly about societies "expectations" or whatnot, where she should could be attacking the real economic forces of patriarchy. She should be tearing down patriarchy first and then using that to liberate trans existence but instead she tears down trans existence without touching patriarchy or any of the coercion or exploitation that arise from it. I consider this a great tragedy, and a prime example of her failures as an educator.

[radfemfox5]

What do u think about the arguments of the brains on transgender people? I have seen that the standard response is "brain sex is not a thing". But I have seen that there is a great discussion between scientists about this and there are proofs that brains between men and women are different in some little ways. I also see this through autism lens, because I'm autistic and females are underdiagnosed and there is a discussion about it too: socialization or brain differences that make more easy the masking and faking neurotypical behaviour.

But of course, even if the brain argument is correct, I don't see how transition is the logical next step to take then. Like, is ur brain, u can take therapy and be gender nonconforming if that's the case anyway. Brain can be trained due to neuroplasticity and kids with gender dysphoria can be treated in a way to become more comfortable in their bodies.

Sorry for my poor english, I'm chilean.

Hi, thank you for your question. Don't worry, English isn't my first language either.

So, this is hard to answer. The short answer is that no, brain sex isn't real. If brain sex is not real, then trans-identified males cannot be born with a "female brain." I feel like this has been retired as an argument for transgenderism, as it's not only a nebulous concept but also goes against the concept that you can identify as anything you want (ie: no biological component to gender).

The long answer is that it's complicated. We don't know enough about the brain to fully understand which part does what, let alone what minute differences there may or may not be between the functioning of a male and a female brain. It's been proven that men and women use different parts of the brain to process the same information, so while there are no structural differences, there could be functional differences that we simply don't know about yet.

@woman-for-women has an excellent post about brain sex here (archive), and I'll use the sources she links as references for my next points. Go check out her posts, seriously, she's incredibly thorough and condenses difficult subjects into easy-to-digest infographics.

I'll first go over brain sex, why it's not real / not proven, and consequently why a male having a "female brain" is impossible. This turned out to be very long, so more under the cut.

In my opinion: the myth that males and females behave differently because of innate differences in brain structure comes from 2 things:

Logic / Common sense. If you present a man with a stressful situation, he will not react the same way a woman would. In our everyday lives, it's easy to assume that men and women are simply wired differently, since we have unique behaviours and thought patterns. Contrary to popular belief, most of this doesn't stem from innate biological differences, but rather from gendered socialization. It's hard for us to gauge what portion of our gendered differences is nature (innate) and which portion is nurture (socialization).

Anecdotal evidence and misconceptions about brain function. In the 18th century, it was discovered that a woman's brain weighs on average 5 oz lighter than a man's. This would lead the general public to assume that, since a woman's brain is smaller, this has an impact on her overall intelligence, which is not true.

Assumptions are often made in the general public and even in neuroscience when it comes to which part of the brain does what based on preexisting notions of what a man is and what a woman is. The study I just showed, for instance, was misconstrued in order to strengthen sex-based stereotypes.

What a surprise, my personal interpretation of my results just coincidentally happened to match gendered stereotypes that I was taught. How bizarre.

In all seriousness, this study and its methods have been ripped to shreds by people much smarter than I.

"As Gina Rippon, author of The Gendered Brain and outspoken critic of neurosexism shows, the hunt for proof of women’s inferiority has more recently elided into the hunt for proof of male–female ‘complementarity’. So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent than men, just ‘different’ in a way that happens to coincide with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles. Thus, women’s brains are said to be wired for empathy and intuition, whereas male brains are supposed to be optimized for reason and action."

In reality, according to more recent studies with bigger sample sizes, men and women don't have significant differences in brain structure to conclusively say that brains are sexually dimorphic.

If you're a more visual person, here are the graphs from the first study, showing overall brain matter volumes and volumes for specific brain structures. The second study's visualizations are less easy to understand, as they're brain scans and brain tissue images.

These graphs are called bell curves, and they're used to demonstrate a distribution. Basically, the peak of the "bell" shape means that this is the most common value for a certain demographic, while the extremities are outliers or rarer values.

As you can see, "considerable distributional overlap" means that these bell curves are nearly identical in most brain structures. However, white matter, grey matter and total brain volume are different in men and women, with women in this study typically having lower numbers. This doesn't affect overall intelligence, as we saw earlier, or affect the overall proportional volumes of different brain structures. This is just a result of women having smaller skulls on average.

So, if there is so much overlap between the sexes, then why can't a male have a female brain? The graphs do have overlapping sections, don't they?

The thing is, brain structure is nearly identical in both sexes. Therefore, there is no typically "female" or "male" brain, but rather "unique mosaics of features" which aren't uniquely male or female.

A good analogy that woman-for-women gives is this: if a man's height is closer to an average woman's height, does that mean this man is now a woman? No, he is a short male. Being in the overlap of this graph doesn't mean that you aren't a part of your own bell curve.

This is a complex topic that was very interesting to look into. If you have more questions about this, feel free to send another ask or look into the sources:

Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic (archive)

The human hippocampus is not sexually-dimorphic: Meta-analysis of structural MRI volumes (archive)

Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants (archive)

Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. (archive)