Akan-kun

I don't mind getting they/them'd when someone doesn't know my pronouns, or they forget momentarily. Honestly I think it's pretty anti-gender neutral language to insist that *any* they/them'ing someone who doesn't go by it is inherently misgendering. What *is* degendering is if someone *repeatedly* uses they/them for a person they know the pronouns of, how to conjugate said pronouns, and has a pronouns list easy to access (i.e middle of a chat, where person in question has it in the bio). I've had moments I straight up just... avoided mentioning someone in the past, because I knew they were hostile to an anonymous they/them, and I didn't know how to conjugate their neopronouns/couldn't remember their neos, or they only provided pronouns on a prns page I could not find a link to on a pinned post etc. We talk about wanting people to get better all the time, but that includes struggling. Obviously once I know how to conjugate someone's pronouns & can remember what they are, I'm not going to use a *gender neutral*/anonymizing singular they. I don't really understand the coining for prn/prns bc of this. Cuz that's been they/them's purpose for HUNDREDS of years. And it feels strange given how many years the queer community has fought for more gender neutral terms.

Trans people have different experiences and that's okay actually, people having different ones isn't always born out of denying themselves. Today's subject is socialization. I understand the concept of being socialized male or female but frankly, people need to realize that relies on the people around you and not everyone's raised based on their AGAB. Yes, some trans people were socialized as their AGAB - and they are valid - and so is trans people that weren't. We tend to pick up mannerisms and socialization based on either 1) how we relate to others that we *think* are like us, and 2) how people insist we act regardless of our feels. So obviously, trans people of different journeys may have ended up going different paths. Personally I felt like I was behaved to towards hostile at times because people would go in assuming I would have ended up with "feminine" social manners/knowledge and get frustrated that I wasn't. I was a visibly genderqueer child and already related myself to the boys and things associated with them around me, so I was socialized like a freak of nature is what it is. Similarly there's lots of trans people who were forced into adopting manners of their AGAB, or cis people raised solely by another gender and ended up adopting those social stereotypes. So people tend to give themselves an idea of how that person should act and get *more* upset if they act otherwise. People jumped to assuming I was more ignorant than usual because I didn't have any idea about "womanly things" (god I hate that phrase) despite being a trans man. Like yeah a cis guy wouldn't know about that anyway, but you're supposed to know, so it's disillusionment. Just because I didn't know what eyeshadow was, never had to use a bra, never experienced menstrual symptoms 95% of the time, that is. And like... maybe the reason that I dunno is because nobody's talking about these things properly. I've always been trying to learn but just because I'm trans, I have a "higher expectation of knowledge", and therefore am a bigger disappointment somehow. Similarly, a cis guy who is like... being just a decent person, is treated like a mythical unicorn that should be revered because people expect men to be ignorant & aggressive.

If you think about it homophobes calling sapphics "fags" is really funny because like. The origin of that slur is that gay men were unmanly and submissive (faggot meaning both errand boy and sticks, like you know, skinny). And that's how they expect women to be. But because sapphics are gay just like gay men they said "ykw let's reuse the word". That's so stupid

Labels should never have become cultures. Similarly, blog trends should've never become cultures. They are not communities. Y'all need to stop acting like terms or blog styles are memberships. "I'm gonna make a new variation of label that already exists cuz ppl that use that one pmo" - you are part of the problem. Stop assuming people are your enemy OR your ally BASED ON DEMOGRAPHIC. This "label/demographic is good or bad" mentality is also super dangerous to teach young people, especially young queer people. That mindset was how I ended up outing myself to people that were, not in fact safe, on factors like "well she's a queer woman so she should be decent/know not to be an ass, right?" when I was like 13-14. Stop making labels performative/for the sole reason of being part of a hivemind that assumes everyone has the same opinion, instead of just having a label in common. Ffs.

Similarly to my last post about it being gendered terms being closed, not the gender experience itself... The way most people use contradictionary labels are the same way. The underlying mechanism is unrelated to the label; the label is simply what it is being categorized as in a social manner. Take genderbenders of past time for example - they weren't binary trans people, in fact lots of them were straight up cis - but they did socially adopt ways of reference and identify nonconformingly. Nowadays we don't really have a social category of "genderbenders", and some of whom would use the term today have adopted different words for it. I call myself contra-ID-neutral because I am not "anti" in the way that I oppose people who identify with contra-ID's, nor am I a hater. I have my own issues with certain ways these labels are phrased socially, I don't believe people using the ones I'm iffy about to be "doing something bad". Or I have no problem with the terms but rather how it's associated, like when I say that men can not be lesbians I am *not* talking about lesboys but people seem to assume that I am? When I say men in that context I'm talking about 100% binary men regardless of trans-/cis- status. Lesboys are genderqueer people that are very masculinely aligned when it comes to terms and social categorization, sort of like he/him lesbians but more gender related rather than presentation related. That being said, I do feel uncomfortable when people claim that 100% binary trans men can be lesbians on sole account that they have "sapphic roots"... And I hate how people assume straight trans guys to be chuds because "why would you wanna be straight men?", or as if they are "betraying" sapphics for some reason. I am not a fan of calling split-attraction peeps "m-spec mono" the most probably that's the one I have the most opinions on. Yes good faith and all but these words have social functions in categorization and histories. Gay/Lesbian are not -sexual or -romantic terms, so is Straight, they are focused on a *lack* of opposite sex interest overall. And oriented split-attraction folks have their own unique struggles and experiences, be they "overlapping" like homo-pan or be they "excluding" like het-hom. What happens when you constantly water down labels by being afraid to look exclusionary is people keep coining "replacement" terms, and then those terms get taken to be vague too, and the initial group again ends up feeling like they don't have a way to describe themselves. It's also really been weird seeing people immediately assume that not liking the labels means you are a biphobe. Overall the queer community online and IRL has this "hierarchy" of who is "less priveleged" and therefore can talk over other people's experiences and it is very disturbing. Just because one group is more priveleged than the rest does not mean that you can suddenly co-opt their experiences. Being a trans guy I have a lot of experiences that are trans-male specific, but because people perceive "man" to automatically mean "has too much already", people will reject that they are related to my identity, or claim that me having identity-specific troubles is "meant to oppose another one". Transandrophobia/misandry whatever you want to call it, while yes has a lot of parts of it from AGAB-based sexism, there are also parts of it that have to do with the "male" part - because nobody is immune to prejudice against nobody - but I can't say that without people either co-opting my experiences, or claiming I don't think misogyny exists, when the two are very very related.

Certain gender-related labels are culturally restricted, but experiences are not. Saying that a label is culturally restricted solely because the experience of that gender or sexuality is a social thing is... not very progressive. The labels around gender are social, yes, but that does not mean that the genders themselves are. This "gender is social" is TERF rhetoric parroted unknowingly arguing that trans people exist because of gender roles. I can't say this is a single regional issue because it is everywhere if you look into it. Many places in the world where people believe that being trans is a white thing as well, simply because the words globally used relating to transness come from European languages. There is gender, then there is constructed gender. Constructed gender can be culturally restricted (i.e closed terms) - gender, i.e in relation to "internal perception of sex", and all the science involved in being trans+, is not a culturally reserved experience.

Sometimes it's so easy to erase those living in non-eurocultural parts of the world because even your perception of eurocentricism is eurocentric on its on. Like, for example, getting mad when people from non-white majority countries not fucking with using generalizing language about white people and accusing them of saying white people are a minority... That's also a very eurocentric view of what bigotry looks like. Generalization and prejudice isn't wrong because it's done against (insert minority), they are wrong because discrimination based on personal characteristics is the core problem. It's honestly sort of weird when people act like just because I am PoC means I am a minority all of the time, cuz where I live... I *am* the majority. And what did I grow up hearing? That white people were "untrustyworthy, only good for sex, stupid and unhygienic". Yet, if I dare get weirded out about people making general statements on the sole basis that white people "are the big evil", I am called a eurocentricist & "colonialized". By people who regardless of their own status live in *white dominated countries*. I am tired of venting about my experiences as a queer person where I am, because I get at least one person - white or PoC - from Europe or the Americas telling me that "White people brought bigotry/homophobia". No, my family isn't whitewashed, they are just bigots and are fully responsible for being such. That can be true for certain cases but why is *my* suffering being made to be about white people? Benevolent racism is racism. "It's okay to disrespect Christians beliefs, they're mainstream lol" well Islam is mainstream where I live but that doesn't make it okay now to you does it, because *you* live in a country where Christians are not a minority. Bigotry isn't wrong because it's done by white people. Bigotry is wrong because it's unfair.

I don't understand people who say they are pro-contact for "non-harmful paraphilia". It's still a disorder and the sentiment doesn't feel very pro-recovery; besides, it wouldn't be considered a fucking disorder if it was JUST an unusual, minor interest.

Don't seek me out at night time because I'll be up knocking on wood hunting ghosts in a house no ghouls adore

Every queer man's canon event is the situationship that kills them just to forge them back up from the ashes again and again before his mid 20's that drastically changes the course of his life forever