ventbloglite - Tumblr blog

[ventbloglite]

It's so strange that some people can perfectly grasp the concept of;

"There are situations in which it is much safer for a trans woman to self-closet/self-degender/self-misgender in order to achieve safety and not become a vicitim of transphobia. Although she does not wish to be perceived as a man, she must do so in these cases to avoid violence or other negative consequences. She is not doing so through some innate desire to be both a woman and maintain male privlege, it is simply for safety."

AND

"A trans woman can indeed be butch/masc without it being a degendering/self-misgendering thing. To say otherwise is transmisogynistic. No woman, trans or otherwise, owes anyone a strict conformity to femininity in order to maintain their womanhood."

AND

"A trans woman revealing she is trans even if she passes, in order to talk about trans issues, represent trans people, or because she is simply not ashamed (nor should she be) and is proud of her transness is not at fault for any transphobia she receives because of this. She is not obligated to live in stealth."

But at the same time also believe that;

"Trans men who aren't living in stealth are inviting transphobia onto themselves in order to be victims but at the same time have male privilege. They are lording their femalehood over trans women every time they talk about being born/living as a woman or how misogyny affects them because of that. Trans men could just not be feminine and that would solve their issues, they should conform to masculine stereotypes (which I will then call them toxic for) which is actually super easy for every single AFAB out there. Trans men who self-degender/self-misgender in order to be safe in situations where being trans poses the risk of violence or worse have a degendering/misgendering fetish."

[ventbloglite]

Some of you really need to step back a little bit and acknowledge how ignorant you are towards how misogyny affects trans mascs and how you yourself may be perpetrating said misogyny when speaking ill of trans mascs.

Which is not something you should be doing at all, fyi. You can talk about individual shitty trans mascs and certain community issues you dislike which involve or are perpetrated by trans mascs without just being transphobic towards trans mascs in general.

So many times I've seen the sentient of 'AFAB's have it really easy, everyone accepts AFAB's as trans, everyone loves AFAB trans people, the world caters to you, there is basically no problems for you if you're AFAB unlike AMAB folk' shown in a variety of ways from a variety of people including just outright saying it. Not to mention the belitting of trans masc experiences with transphobia and misogyny + the way those interact because they identify as men even though transphobes still consider them to be women and don't give a shit about their actual gender.

A main crux of transphobia (though many other factors which result in hating us come into play, too many to go into now) is that trans people are seen as and treated as their AGAB and punished for not identifying as it or portraying it 'correctly' by society. So tell me why so many seem to 'forget' about how misogyny impacts trans masculine people. Could it be because you believe that advocating for trans women and trans femmes and fighting transmisogyny somehow must involve being transphobic towards trans men due to that radfem influence you've absorbed? The world will never reach gender equality of any kind if everything is 'men versus women' so can we just fucking not bring that into trans spaces please.

Examples!

I saw recently a post which perfectly pointed out the potential risks associated with someone considered 'male' growing out her hair but OP clearly knew absolutely nothing about the same risks associated with someone deemed 'female' cutting his hair. Instead of not making that post or doing some research, OP thus assumed there weren't really any risks likely due to already believing that AFAB trans people have it easy.

The ignorance! Misogyny heavily impacts the way hair is treated on those perceived as women (including body hair) and women/those perceived as women have no end of people policing what they can and can't do with their bodies often taking things to the absolute extreme to do so. Short hair on woman may seem 'more accepted' but AFAB people of any gender could quickly tell you multiple situations where it's not and results in the same violence, abuse, homo(lesbo/butch)phobia and yes possibly even death depending on the situation even if you still identify as a woman. Pretending this doesn't happen is straight up misogyny btw.

'AFAB's pass easily by doing basically nothing' is another frequent one which makes me laugh. 'Passing' for most trans people is so situational and so dependent on what you do or don't do to strictly conform to gender stereotypes if you're even able to do that at all. To suggest that the world ignores feminine gender markers the moment someone's hair is short and their chest appears mostly flat ignores both the complexity of how humans perceive gender and how misogyny comes into play whenever a woman/perceived woman shows any masculinity let alone maleness. Considering the same misogyny comes into play frequently against trans women you'd think it'd be easy to remember.

This general sentiment of 'Being born with a vagina means your life is easy and everything you do will be loved and supported because society adores you. You don't and will never have any real problems, not like anyone born with a penis.' isn't magically okay and absolutely super different to when misogynists say it about cis women because you're using AGAB language and cite 'because you're men and blah blah patriarchy' as the actual reason you're saying it. It's very clearly same shit different coat of paint. The pool is there, your toes are in, stop preparing to dive for Gods sake.

[ventbloglite]

Every time I see a well-meaning Autistic person talk about their positive interpretation of Autism represented by the puzzle piece I heave a HUGE sigh.

The issue with the puzzle piece isn't what you see it as meaning. This isn't an debate on whether or not it's an appropriate or aesthetic symbol that Autistic people like (although that might come into play a little).

The issue is that it's being actively used by ableist and anti-Autistic companies etc as their logo and as representation of their views. That's also exactly why it can't be reclaimed. They're still using it. They will still use it even if Autistic people also use it. The more people use it the more they seem like reasonable and representative companies because if they weren't, why would so many people 'agree' by using their symbol?

Do you get it now? I know you mean well, but please just leave the puzzle piece to the ableists and stop trying to push a positive association with it.

[ventbloglite]

"But how can you defend an AFAB calling herself a trans woman or trans fem?" Can you like not be exorsexist or intersexist for like two hot seconds and also remember that some people detransition and also remember that some people just have complex genders and maybe just maybe might consider themselves trans feminine because of that?

Also nobody 'owns' those words dumbass they describe a certain experience not necessarily the person stop putting people in boxes they know what their experience is. I've literally never seen someone who wasn't straight up genderqueer or intersex or both call themselves transfeminine despite being born AFAB. No cis woman is calling herself trans feminine just for existing as a woman. AFAB does not equal 'cis' just as much as it doesn't equal 'woman'. Y'all need to remember what the 'assigned' part is supposed to mean.

[ventbloglite]

Any other systems* seen the Inside No.9 episode "Thinking Out Loud"? What did you think of it? You can either just quickly answer the poll, add in a comment or reblog more detailed thoughts, a combination or just ignore it I guess.

*Since this is a story dealing with a character having DID, I ask that only systems and not endoplurals answer. This is a question for those whose disorder is being presented and similar (such as OSDD systems), not for anyone who experiences plurality. Of course I can't stop you so this is here to indicate a certain level of trust.

I personally think it's one of the better portrayals of how DID works and some research was clearly done, and I'm not actually mad that the abuser was killed even though I know 'killer alter' is a stereotype I think overall the viewer is invited to be sympathetic with the system and side with them.

Run down of the episode if you need refreshing or didn't see it:

Inside No.9 is a collection of episodic tales with a variety of genres including comedy, dark, horror, fantasy and serious life events. I was weary when the twist of 'Thinking Out Loud' was that the most prominent character had DID because the way they've dealt in the other episodes with mental illnesses or breaks has been hit and miss at best.

But here's the thing - as we're introduced to the idea of the system existing, the system has done nothing wrong. The plot twist is not 'you did something awful because you're a system and now you must remember it' it's 'you, the host, need to realise that you are part of a system because we're about to be confronted with our abuser again after many years'.

The story, told in parts, is about a woman called Nadia. Nadia witnessed frequent domestic abuse against her mother which ended with said mother being murdered in front of her. Because of this, the system was created. Nadia has no idea all her life that she is a system however, simply aware of 'memory loss'. It seems other members however are somewhat or entirely aware, in particular the Gatekeeper who is not named but speaks and acts like a therapist.

It's the Gatekeeper who encourages Nadia to leave a camera running so she can catch when she switches and start to get to know the system (it seems this system communicates best when speaking out loud and each alter that fronts believes that the camera is there for different reasons, though the Gatekeeper seems to have a strong mental dialogue).

Eventually, as time before the abuser arrives is drawing short, the Gatekeeper abandons her attempts at trying to slowly ease Nadia into acknowledging her trauma and discovering the system and just tells her what is going on. That's how we get the context for the other characters, who are alters in the system. It is also acknowleged that these alters are just the frequent fronters and that there's likely more that the Gatekeeper or anyone else doesn't know about yet.

Nadia - Host, maybe the original. Diana - trauma holder, when she fronts she closes her eyes and sings Amazing Grace as this was what happened during the abuse to block out what was happening. Angel - caretaker, believes she's a vlogger and so does vlogs to the camera, very cheerful and upbeat, puts a positive spin on everything Aiden - protector, Angel's dad, possibly remembers some of the trauma Galen - persecutor, introject of the abuser but isn't a 1 to 1 copy of the abuser, believes himself to be in prison for killing his mother and father but this is his personal memories mixed with what actually happened during the abuse, speaks with a southern drawl and is the only alter with a noticably different accent, is mad that nobody appreciates what he does for the system. (memory of exact roles is a bit fuzzy there's also 'Bill' who makes a dating style video and is an old man but I forget his significance. Also note that the names are anagrams of each other! Most with 'Nadia' and then Angel and Galen. The alters present as different genders, races and ages.)

The story ends with the abuser, fresh from jail, greeting Nadia and being welcomed into her home where Galen fronts and stabs him before Nadia fronts again. The story then ends.

[ventbloglite]

The thing is...I've read a lot of posts and listened to a lot of videos by binary trans men & women and non-binary people of any AGAB and intersex people to whom masculinity is assumed or desired.

Each group has unique experiences with unique bigotry targetted at them for being who they are. But each group also experiences misplaced bigotry, aimed at a different group but used to hurt them anyway.

There's also a distinct and very real overlap between transmisogyny and transandrophobia. The thread that connects these concepts for binary and nonbinary trans masc people, AMAB's of any identity (intersex and not), and yeah even some butch cis lesbians is what we've been harking on about so long - the inherent villianising of masculinity in particularly when deemed to be in the 'incorrect' place!

A butch woman is not expected to be 'too masculine'. If she's seen as failing womanhood in this way, she will face discrimination from others for doing this even amongst other lesbians.

Attending groups or events for 'women and nonbinary' only to find out they mean 'women and women-lite' and don't want anyone with any proximity to masculinity to be there. Being told or being able to quickly understand that your masculinity is making others uncomfortable despite the fact that you are amongst other queer people/trans people. Being expected to preform femininity to a certain stereotyped degree to prove you are 'safe'.

These are all specific things which could be considered both transandrophobia OR transmisogyny, depending on who they happen to but...now here me out, doesn't that just mean we need to sit and realise that the distinction between them isn't always rigid? That there is an antimasculine issue within the trans and queer community but it doesn't target any one particular group over another. The acceptance of queer masculinity is a must. It won't solve all issues not by far, but would go a long way into making sure trans women (especially but not just those who 'don't pass' and maybe never want to be feminine anyway) feel more accepted and less like they'll always be seen as predators for being born male/assigned male at birth. It'll go a long way into accepting the 'men' part of trans men and the 'masc' part of any trans masc. It'll go a long way to accepting butch lesbians are still women despite their outward proximity to 'maleness'.

And if you're seriously reading this and are about to go on a tirade about how masculinity is praised and desired in society - stop. Cis masculinity is praised and desired and even then it has rules.

The world is a lot more complex than men and masculinity good anything else bad but unfortunately if you keep seeing it this way even if you disagree you are going to be responsible for both transandrophobia and transmisogyny persisting.

[ventbloglite]

Genuine question - I keep seeing radfems and TERFs or non-radfem but misguided people etc tell people 'this is just 'not all men' repackaged' in response to being told that they can't shed gender essentialism, radfem/TERF ideology, gender inequality etc and actually start bringing equality and understanding between genders (including trans people) if they keep believing in the idea that 'all men are evil' and this might be the autism but why is it bad to say 'not all men' in the first place? Because yeah...it's impossible for an entire gender of people (numbering hundreds of thousands of people) to all do the exact same actions, like the same things, have the same morals etc etc without being a hivemind. I guess I'm missing some kind of...nuance?

[ventbloglite]

Somebody telling a joke because it's relatable to some: "Haha trans masc culture is loving plaid shirts and trans fem culture is loving skirts that you don't have to tuck in!"

People who enjoy looking for issues with everything and hate jokes unless they specifically relate to them:

"ACTUALLY I'm trans masc and I HATE plaid. "

"How about we don't assume what somebody likes to wear based on their gender?"

"I'm a trans fem and I love plaid actually."

"Ugh I hate this it's just Barbie is for she/they's all over again here is a collection of photos of trans mascs and trans femmes wearing the opposite of what OP said!"

[ventbloglite]

Saw an interesting post by @snaxle lately but didn't want to add my crap to it and spoil the post or w/e but it did get me thinking.

It's really sad that it's seen as 'controversial' to speak up about misandry especially when it leads to transphobia because people think you're saying 'women oppress men' and that's... not it at all? Anyone can say this stuff, including men themselves? Anyone can accidentally pick up TERF ideology?

'It's bigotry to hate on a whole group for something like their gender' is not pointing the finger at anyone else in particular and calling them an oppressor. It's stating a fact that we all should know is true, but inviting you to understand that this includes men. Yes, even completely nonqueer* men!

And as Snaxle points out, you are being invited to understand the radfem/TERF ideology you are spouting, supporting and encouraging when you make and share posts hating on a whole ass gender as if the thousands of people the word 'men' covers (including some people who are also women) are all exactly the same.

As if being born with a penis, or identifying with the gender of those who usually are, changes your entire personality and morality into a singular hivemind wherein you must adhere to violent, abusive, unhygienic, rude and emotionless behaviour expected of every man. These traits of course, being impossible to have if you're not a man. /sarc

It's easy to understand!

You start saying you hate all men and you justify it to yourself based on crime statistics or personal trauma. You convince yourself even if you don't say it/subconsciously that men basically aren't people. Not like women are people, anyway. It often includes ignoring intersectionality and that what you actually hate is Patriarchy as a system of control and oppression of anyone who doesn't fit the surprisingly narrow scope of 'acceptable' which also includes an awful lot of men.

You may make an exception for trans men/masc people, but only if we don't preform masculinity too well or you may include us to 'validate' our gender.

Excluding trans men/masc people often comes with reasoning that infantilises us or acts like our AFAB status makes us simply too pure to do wrong (not like Real I mean cishet men!).

Including trans men/masc people often leads to ignoring that we can be targets of unique antitransmasc hate and even misogyny in favour of the illogical hatred against our gender.

Both options are supported by TERFs to either enact hatred onto us or speak of us as though we're just confused little girls.

Sometimes this form of misandry also includes acting like being attracted to men is either wrong or 'unfortunate' including when men love other men.

Forever you skirt the boundaries of 'just' hating men 'of privilege' to hating anyone who has or was born with a penis regardless of current gender because a lot of the people who agree and support your generalized view on men and how awful we are inherently do not make a distinction between man and trans woman and will argue that it is in fact the biology that makes 'men' gross and violent.

Suddenly womanhood is on this incredibly high and unstable pedestal where 'safe' means acting a certain way and it's so incredibly easy to be pushed off. Not to mention how disgusting it is to turn your back of womanhood, right? /sarc

At the same time, having an abuser who isn't a man seems like it's impossible so you must be wrong if you think someone who isn't a man and doesn't have a penis is abusing you especially if you are a man yourself.

Thinking men are ok is suddenly a controversial stance to have especially if you're a woman and any man who is being 'allowed' to be viewed as safe does so by strict adherence to an unfair set of ever changing rules oftentimes which includes having to show hatred for the self and other men.

Nobody should be made to feel like an unlovable monster because of their gender and TERFs shouldn't be getting incidental ideology support even a little, even just at the fringes, because you can't think critically.

*I use nonqueer here because some queer men are also cishet e.g. cis arohet/hetace

[ventbloglite]

If you're a Zionist and you respond to this post I'm just going to block you. But to that one person: I can't believe you sit there, cosy and protected, typing with your own digits any phrase which amounts to; "Since Jewish people have historically been oppressed by many different groups, any genocide they commit is an act of self defence."

What is self defence here? Killing unarmed civilians and journalists by the ten's and sometimes hundreds? The years of treating Palestinians as second class citizens that proceeded this? The many, many dead children and infants? The destruction of empty buildings to rob them of places to stay and places of culture? The salting of the earth so nobody not even you can use that land for years to come, potentially forever?

Self defence is when you are directly attacked first. People who are not Jewish living in, around and near Israel are not attacking Israeli rights to be Jewish. There is of course nothing wrong with being Jewish and all Jews deserve to be openly Jewish and practicing.

But nothing, I repeat, nothing gives anyone the right to commit genocide.

By the commenters logic, black people should be able to kill any white person they see. Queer people should be able to kill anyone they perceive as cishet. And basically anyone who isn't Christian should be able to kill Christians. That's not how the world works. You don't suffer through oppression so that one day you can cause great atrocities onto anyone you like.

Sincerely trying to cite completely unrelated attacks on Jewish people as reasons Palestinians have to die is archaic and sick.

The way Israeli Zionists are using the long history of Jewish suffering against those who are now suffering and dying at their hands and against those from outside the warzone who wish to end that suffering and support Palestinian rights to be alive is sick. It's manipulative. Imagine looking at the suffering of your people and going; "I can use this to freely commit genocide on a different kind of people and escape criticism. Anything they do, anything anyone does, except sit and take it, will be deemed anti-semitic which we all know is considered morally the worst thing ever and will make people think of Nazi's, so shutting down negative conversation about us and help for them." And imagine that fucking working.

[ventbloglite]

Transphobes will look at all the bullshit things trans people have to do in order to stay safe (which often means staying hidden) and be gendered correctly (or forced into the closest and not discovered to be so) in order to make sure we don't get hate crimed which often involves being beaten up, raped and/or murdered and subject to any number of sudden bullshit laws against us and go;

"Well gee, this proves that trans people are creepy sneaky little creatures trying to infiltrate our nice normal society and pervert it, otherwise they would all be out in the open and accepted! If you have to hide at all that must mean you are doing wrong. There are no other possible reasons for hiding other than doing perverted evil things and needing to hide them from good clean society. There has never ever been a case of harmless identities and people being subjected to undue hate due to ignorance and bigotry of privleged others. Clearly the presence of laws and hate against you and the fact that you are sneaky slimy little trannys is proof of your evil and your guilt. I am very smart."

[ventbloglite]

Just saw a post where somebody screenshotted a part from American Horror Story, showing the actress who plays the two-headed girl (haven't seen it myself, just know of it) and the caption is intentionally misleading to the point that many believe it to be real. Even though it's from a show, and such a thing is likely impossible to exist the way it exists in the show, and there's no follow up information or details and many people keep saying it's from the show. And I got to thinking...yeah, it's dumb that some people will absolutely double down on being wrong, but can they be blamed? The only thing they can be faulted for is not looking it up themselves to see if the person is right or not.

Not everyone has seen or even heard of AHS, let alone that particular season. Many haven't seen that actress before. There's lots of people on the internet who say everything is fake even when it's not. So, if you're a naturally trusting person and have no reason to disbelieve someone, you're going to see something and assume it's real. How then can you tell the difference between someone correcting you and being right and someone who just likes to say everything is fake to 'ruin the magic' of something that seems wonderful? You can't. But you can absolutely fact check yourself. So yeah, not dumb to believe it or disbelieve people correcting you, but kinda silly to not just check up on it yourself.

[ventbloglite]

People are so damned convinced that kids don't actually understand gender or care about gender stuff (and that's why they can't be trans) even though I work with kids and like...there's a couple of boys (4 y) in the class right now and they have a fave insult for each other. That insult?

"You're a girl." Now, I wonder who taught them that is an insult? I wonder why these children know that's going to be hurtful? Why it's hurtful at all? I wonder why they think it's funny?

Could it be because they understand what the two binary genders are, dislike being misgendered and have been taught that degendering someone (especially a boy into a girl) is a valid and funny thing to do because of course a boy isn't a girl? And they're 4.

[ventbloglite]

'being gay is accepted nowadays' - ignorant people

There are many countries where it's a death penalty for being gay, like if you're man and you even flirt with another man that is it for you.

"But in places like America and the UK..." My mothers still get regularly accused of abusing me simply by existing as a same sex couple. In certain places they wouldn't even have been allowed to have me.

"But online it's really woke and-"

Even here, on the 'gay website', there's a post joking about 'celestial yuri' because the 'stars' we see that are actually Venus and Jupiter (partially based on the 'is this yuri/this too is yuri' meme and the characters of that association from Sailor Moon) and we've got people in the comments and reblogs saying shit like 'that is a man and a woman' and 'actually based on this particular myth looking at the way the planets are named this is actually straight and maybe incest'.

Rather than just...seeing it as a light happy joke about lesbians.

So no, people still pretty much hate same sex romance and sex. I didn't even get into half of stuff that's going on. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I just think we should be watchful so stuff doesn't slide whilst we think we're all safe.

[ventbloglite]

The way Israeli Zionists are using the long history of Jewish suffering against those who are now suffering and dying at their hands and against those from outside the warzone who wish to end that suffering and support Palestinian rights to be alive is sick. It's manipulative. Imagine looking at the suffering of your people and going; "I can use this to freely commit genocide on a different kind of people and escape criticism. Anything they do, anything anyone does, except sit and take it, will be deemed anti-semitic which we all know is considered morally the worst thing ever and will make people think of Nazi's, so shutting down negative conversation about us and help for them." And imagine that fucking working.

[ventbloglite]

Yeah tbh we have a lot of alters who are just 'the original but only feels x emotion' including myself. Our only female identifying alter is just the original before transition at age 13-16 (it depends) except she decided to give herself her own name.

What's crazy about having DID is that everyone expects your alters to be super differentiated with their own appearance and likes and interests but I have alters who are just me when I was 15-16. They're the same guy.

It's like someone just took a photo of who I was at age 15 and decided to make an alter out of it. This is way more common than people think it is.

[ventbloglite]

I hate that when people try to point out that it's a real observed fact that some people with OCD have intrusive thoughts which are specifically about harming children, specifically sexually, people immidiately jump to the conclusion that it's just 'pedos trying to lump themselves in with another harmless group so people will accept them' or 'ableists accusing a group of being pedos just like when people say being gay or trans makes you a pedo' and not what it is, which is;

"My mental illness gives me intrusive (read, not controlled or dictated by my actually wants, desires or morality) thoughts about harming children in this specific way and that causes me a lot of distress to the point where I spend a lot of my time making sure I do not actually harm children, which has ruined my relationship with family members younger than me and my ability to be social in case I go somewhere where there any basically any children at all, which is basically everywhere."

Like, I don't have it but I can understand how this would be distressing and that 'intrusive thoughts about x' is not the same as 'making you /want/ to do that thing'. Literally nobody is saying having OCD makes you attracted to kids. They're saying some people with OCD have a symptom which involves believing they may harm children, have harmed children or are an awful person who secretly wants to harm children even though it repulses and upsets them. Like what, do you think that there's somehow a choice in which intrusive thoughts a person gets? Or that intrusive thoughts will magically never touch upon certain kinds of negative acts or thoughts? Do the fact that these intrusive thoughts exist in people make you repulsed by them and unwilling to understand what intrusive thoughts are? Congrats on being an ableist!

"But I have OCD and-" great! An ableist against people just like you because you think that if you personally don't have that trait, or nobody you immidiately know has that trait, then it doesn't exist! God, imagine if people talked that way about lesser known Autistic traits, we'd all be up in arms!

Remember, it doesn't make them want to do sexual things to minors, or attracted to minors. Intrusive thoughts plague you with doubts about your actions and intentions, even when you know they're not true. It's not hard. {{Note I'm not super articulate so I apologise if anything is phrased badly, feel free to add a better phrased term or sentence}}