worstgirleva

[worstgirleva]

the reason you don't get to have transandrophobia is because it was coined as and is primarily used as an anti-transfeminist tool, a thing that you can accuse trans women of doing to you when we speak up about our own oppression or are, like, impolite to you. a huge part of the reason transmisogyny exists as a word is to describe the ways that tme trans people are capable of oppressing transfems, so of course the counterpart exists to accuse trans women of the opposite.

[worstgirleva]

jesus resurrecting just to go back to heaven is such a "and just so that everyone know, i'm not owned. when you executed me i'm the one who was in control and here is proof"

[worstgirleva]

like genuinely i lurked in (cis) mra spaces in the mid-2010s, i can assure you that whatever your intentions, "special places set aside for men to talk about the unique problems we face as men" is nothing more than a trap, the lip of a funnel that leads to the alt-right and a place to cultivate antifeminism. you are currently dangling around step 0 of gamergate.

[worstgirleva]

do people still theory about paimon being evil or after all this time have they accepted her presence as a fact of life or something

[worstgirleva]

"um excuuuse me, but our culture as men is founded on the denigration and humiliation of the women in our community, so when you criticize misogyny you are attacking our beloved history" doesn't magically become a good argument just because you're gay or trans, you dumb assholes

[worstgirleva]

I think some understand how transmisogyny functions and how trans women are cast as dangerous predators in an abstract way but it's shocking like. How people will not realize that they have for sure had direct contact with this thinking. Like when you pull up the Wikipedia page for any male serial killer for whom there's any evidence at all that they cross dressed or had like the slightest sprinkle of trans in them like. You will see that on their Wikipedia page! It will become part of how they are understood in popular culture! It's easy to see that and go 'oh well he wasn't trans actually' or 'oh well I guess that happened but it's irrelevant I personally don't care' but like, that information isn't included for no reason! The thing that makes that information notable enough to document on their gotdang wikipedia page is the transphobic, specifically transmisogynistic, assumption that the merest possibility of transfemininity is evidence of their depravation. And on top of that it also does the work of transfeminizing people who are Not Even Trans in order to promote and produce the idea that the transfeminine is monstrous.

[worstgirleva]

Forcefem isn't complicated at all actually. It's kinda like being sold to one direction. The idea that your family has run out of money and had to sell you as property to this group of wealthy and powerful people is terrifying, but it's clearly the fantasy of the writer. It's not just about getting the thing you want, but to have it enforced upon you because you can't admit that you want it

[worstgirleva]

americans see their government bombing a other nations and all they can talk about is me me me oh my god the world war is here what'll happen to me? unfunny jokes about world war genz dark humour with no regard whatsoever for people losing their lives in constant state of danger because what about me? me? me???

[worstgirleva]

[worstgirleva]

phenomenon ive only ever seen on tumblr that i think we should start killing people over actually

[worstgirleva]

We don't have to lie and pretend the United States is bombing Iran because of trans people. I know you queer crackers are unable to imagine any world where your existence is not central but the reason the United States is bombing Iran is for securing its economic interests in the region. Securing economic interests in the region would in turn actually benefit trans Americans.

You are in the imperial core. You are beneficiaries of imperialism. You are not the reason West Asia is getting bombed. We have been getting bombed since before trans people stopped being a dirty secret in the United States' general society.

I'm going to throttle you fucking crackers.

[worstgirleva]

everytime I see a Yank post some about world war 3 or some homonationalist nonsense, I think about this tweet

[worstgirleva]

They are having an afternoon snack

[worstgirleva]

ralsei dot png

[worstgirleva]

the thing about "age gap" discourse is that it's all framed in this way that carefully fails to account anywhere for the structure of patriarchy, instead cleverly hiding it in the background like furniture.

"i think wide age gaps are problematic" is framed as if it's a general concern. but if you ask for an example they will ALWAYS reach first for the case of an older man and a younger woman. this is meant to read as being self-evidently in favor of their point of view, but it only works that way if you fail to ask why it is self-evident that an older man would hold such disproportionate power.

why? is it perhaps the case that men tend in general to accrue more power & wealth & influence & position as they age? does that phenomenon arise naturally or are we perhaps talking around some other set of explicable social phenomena? is there some reason why, as is heavily implied by your argument, women do not accrue the aforementioned advantages as they age in the same way? without arguing that the relationship you describe either is or is not "problematic," can we examine whether we are framing correctly what exactly might be problematic about it? in this example, age is used as a convenient synecdoche that stands in for all the privilege that typically accrues to men as time goes on and as they advance within the patriarchal hierarchies woven into their personal and professional lives: a youth becomes a family patriarch, a bachelor becomes head of a household, a junior clerk becomes a C-suite suit. a woman, in the equivalent time, does not accrue patriarchal privilege as she ages -- in fact, absent other factors, her power (& value, since her only power under patriarchy is her value) decline the older she gets. lumping all this under "age gap" is not just simplistic, it's wrong.

this is illustrated in counterexample by the fact that when people who are fixated on "age gaps" give an example with an older woman and a younger man, they never fail to get more specific and make her his teacher, or his babysitter (current or ex-), or to specify this time that she is wealthy and he is destitute. it becomes obvious that once again, age is a stand-in in each case for some other differential of power -- structural power within the institution of the school for the teacher, the dyadic mentor/mentee carer/cared-for dynamic for the babysitter, and the simple familiar gulf between wealth and poverty for the rich woman.

the people fixated on "age gaps" either won't mention queer relationships at all because they raise inconvenient questions, or they'll actually come out and say "well it's kinda different for queer people and i can't weigh in uwu," or they'll go mask-off reactionary and invoke the specter of queer grooming to drive their point home. it makes little difference.

every statistic shows that people who own horses have excellent health outcomes. thinking about this for even two seconds should make clear that this is because only rich people own horses and rich people get excellent healthcare; the horses have nothing to do with it. the people who are worried about "age gaps" aren't even always wrong that there's a problematic power difference in a relationship, but their analysis of why that is makes about as much sense as "a horse every day keeps the doctor away" makes as medical advice.

say what you fucking mean.

[worstgirleva]

Today is Edelgard from Fire Emblem: Three Houses' birthday!

[worstgirleva]