no longer arguing when i'm right

The reason why women* are "allowed" to be masculine when men* "aren't" allowed to be feminine under patriarchy is because DYKES and BUTCHES and other masculine women* SPENT DECADES FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS TO EXIST PUBLICLY.

The fact that women* can wear pants and suits etc. and are not constantly forced to be hyper feminine/in adherence with strict gendered dress codes without punishment (AND ONLY IN SOME COUNTRIES!) is a win on behalf of feminist political action NOT because of some baseline acceptance of masculinity in everybody by the patriarchy.

(*and people forcibly socially classed as women and men)

Like oh my lord some of you need to shut the fuck up and learn what it was like to be socially classed as a woman before the sexual revolution and what it continues to be like outside of the imperial core.

again, maybe you weren't thinking about those arguments when you wrote this and were simply intending to give a round of applause to the feminist movements of the 20th century for an oft overlooked or downplayed win, and if that is the case, then agreed. it was a very important accomplishment.

however, at the present time, we've got some very charged and harmful rhetoric going around that use pretty much the exact same framing you used here with the exact same blindspots, and so i figured i'd do you and your audience the kindness of making sure the implications of your omissions didn't go unnoticed.

I made this post because I have seen the, frankly, anti-feminist anti-butch argument that "masculinity is inherently accepted by the Patriarchy, even in women and people assigned female, whereas femininity is always inherently punished by the patriarchy in everyone of every gender identity" go around this website for awhile now. The argument that regularly gets brought up in favor of that misconception is the fact that women* (and people classed as women) are allowed to dress "masculine" whereas men* (and people classed as men) are always punished for dressing "feminine" — and this is simply false in both cases.

This post has nothing to do with drag queens and male transvestites fighting for their own rights to exist as gnc people, and everything to do with the fact that one very specific feminist success and the lack of education around it has led a lot of under-educated people to believe that one form of gender non-conformity is accepted by the Patriarchy when another isn't - when that's literally just lie actually.

This is a post about the history of masc activism being erased and ahistorically treated like a facet of the Patriarchy.

so, i've looked through your blog some now, and it seems that when taking this post in the context of many of your other posts, it seems my suspicions were, in fact, right on the money about the dogwhistles i was hearing. anyway.

is my masculinity always an asset? fuck no. a central tenant to intersectionality is pointing out how conditional pretty much every privilege and oppression can be, but it acknowledges this complexity in order to build a more robust way to talk about patriarchy and other systems of oppression.

and at the end of the day, if i know nothing else about the place i'm going and want to ensure my smoothest interactions with people there? i'm going with the vest and Oxford shirt or the tank top and jacket rather than the flowery blouse.

and while yes, it took a lot of fighting to get even here, you can't tell this story without also asking why men in dresses are still largely met with ridicule by most of society. was it because the equivalent fight wasn't fought? or was it because patriarchy is more amenable to people seeking or emulating masculinity than people rejecting it?

NO IT ISN'T. IT LITERALLY ISN'T.

And that's a fucked up thing to try to imply to someone who was correctively assaulted for just verbally expressing the desire to present more masculine.

You are actively denying the lived realities of people just because you haven't personally experienced it and that's a terrible thing to do to other trans people.

Apparently it's oppositional sexism when people classed as women and girls (which inherently includes trans women because I get accused of saying shit I'm not) are violently corrected for expressing masculinity. And not just like. sexist Patriarchal coercion.

While gender expression is thus less explicitly criminalized than sexual orientation—the same project reports 66 countries that criminalize same-sex relations between consenting adults—LBQ+ people interviewed for this report repeatedly named gendered discrimination against masculine gender expressions in particular as the catalyst for a lifetime of economic marginalization, discrimination and harassment at work, psychological abuse, and physical and sexual violence. [...]

Nadia, an LBQ+ activist in Lebanon recounted how, in 2019, a man in Beirut threatened to shoot her after she defended a female friend he was sexually harassing: "If you are butch-presenting, there’s an attitude from men of “you think you’re a man, we’re going to treat you like one, but we know you can’t handle it.” If your girlfriend is being harassed in a bar and you try to protect her; if you’re femme, you’ll be sexually harassed along with her. But butches get punched. The violence is immediate. This is why we don’t go out much. I had a gun pulled on me once because I stood up to a guy aggressively hitting on a friend of mine. He threatened to use it and said multiple times: “I’ll show you” and “you’re trying to become a man.” It’s not just about inflicting violence on your body; it’s about proving you’re not as strong as you’re pretending your body is. This stuff is way more nuanced than men trying to “show you what you’re missing” by raping you. It’s not just about “here is the dick you need sexually because you’re a lesbian.” It’s about “here is the dick you aspire to physically have; I’m going to show you that you cannot have it.” It’s about putting queer women in their place. A stark reminder about violence against those who struggle to take up space. [...]

LBQ+ advocates in Argentina, El Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and the US reported that from a young age, styles of dress read as masculine, gender-nonconforming, or androgynous resulted in threats from parents to remove girls from school, compounding the already precarious access to education that girls face globally. A 2017 Human Rights Watch report examining discrimination against LGBT students in the Philippines found that “teachers scrutinized girls they considered ‘butch’ or masculine, and took steps to separate them from other girls to prevent them from becoming close.” One 22-year-old bisexual woman who had attended high school in Manila told Human Rights Watch that more masculine-presenting girls were “especially targeted.” [...] As a UNESCO report on discrimination and bullying in school noted, “[e]xclusion and stigma in education can also have life-long impacts on employment options, economic earning potential, and access to benefits and social protection.” According to interviews, if women continued to wear these same styles of masculine-coded dress later in life, they experienced employment discrimination. This included rejection from jobs in indoor employment otherwise available to lower- and middle-class women in many countries, such as in hotels, restaurants, catering, cleaning, administration, and secretarial work. [...]

LBQ+ activists in Argentina, El Salvador, and Kyrgyzstan told Human Rights Watch similar stories about masculine-presenting LBQ+ people in their communities being routinely pushed into precarious jobs with poor labor rights practices (farm work, sex work, and auto shops, respectively) or primarily male-dominated fields where they face further forms of abuse. Rosa, an LBQ+ activist in El Salvador, reported that several butch lesbians in her community were compelled to work as sex workers after being repeatedly rejected from work they were otherwise qualified for, such as jobs in restaurants, food trucks, and hotels due to wearing pants, collared shirts, and their hair short. As sex workers, they were exposed to a wide range of human rights violations and dangers. [...] "Whenever a lesbian sex worker is detained, they say we are insane, that we are lesbians because we haven’t had a good fuck. Before they take you to jail, you get raped. Then they bring you and charge you. You are targeted as a sex worker, hunted down on the street the way we all are, and then you are punished like a lesbian. When police raid brothels and homes, the masculine lesbians get treated “like men.” This means more forceful handcuffing, kneeling, and stripping their shirts off." According to Rosa, police are “far more brutal” to masculine-presenting queer women, which is particularly dangerous given that their masculine-presentation is a large part of what originally forced many LBQ+ people into sex work. Thus, masculine-presenting queer women’s discrimination in employment may lead to police violence after being pushed into sex work.

also notice how this report covers areas that aren't the US or Canada or the UK or Australia. hence why ftmtftm said ONLY IN SOME COUNTRIES is people seen as women wearing pants (not men's pants, women's pants) socially acceptable.

tbh i think at a certain point, trying to distinguish between oppositional & traditional sexism fails because they necessarily function as one. anti-queerness is fundamental to patriarchy, as fundamental as misogyny is, and misogyny is inherently anti-queer as is misandry, and anti-queerness is inherently misogynistic and misandristic.

The reason why women* are "allowed" to be masculine when men* "aren't" allowed to be feminine under patriarchy is because DYKES and BUTCHES and other masculine women* SPENT DECADES FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS TO EXIST PUBLICLY.

The fact that women* can wear pants and suits etc. and are not constantly forced to be hyper feminine/in adherence with strict gendered dress codes without punishment (AND ONLY IN SOME COUNTRIES!) is a win on behalf of feminist political action NOT because of some baseline acceptance of masculinity in everybody by the patriarchy.

(*and people forcibly socially classed as women and men)

Like oh my lord some of you need to shut the fuck up and learn what it was like to be socially classed as a woman before the sexual revolution and what it continues to be like outside of the imperial core.

again, maybe you weren't thinking about those arguments when you wrote this and were simply intending to give a round of applause to the feminist movements of the 20th century for an oft overlooked or downplayed win, and if that is the case, then agreed. it was a very important accomplishment.

however, at the present time, we've got some very charged and harmful rhetoric going around that use pretty much the exact same framing you used here with the exact same blindspots, and so i figured i'd do you and your audience the kindness of making sure the implications of your omissions didn't go unnoticed.

I made this post because I have seen the, frankly, anti-feminist anti-butch argument that "masculinity is inherently accepted by the Patriarchy, even in women and people assigned female, whereas femininity is always inherently punished by the patriarchy in everyone of every gender identity" go around this website for awhile now. The argument that regularly gets brought up in favor of that misconception is the fact that women* (and people classed as women) are allowed to dress "masculine" whereas men* (and people classed as men) are always punished for dressing "feminine" — and this is simply false in both cases.

This post has nothing to do with drag queens and male transvestites fighting for their own rights to exist as gnc people, and everything to do with the fact that one very specific feminist success and the lack of education around it has led a lot of under-educated people to believe that one form of gender non-conformity is accepted by the Patriarchy when another isn't - when that's literally just lie actually.

This is a post about the history of masc activism being erased and ahistorically treated like a facet of the Patriarchy.

so, i've looked through your blog some now, and it seems that when taking this post in the context of many of your other posts, it seems my suspicions were, in fact, right on the money about the dogwhistles i was hearing. anyway.

is my masculinity always an asset? fuck no. a central tenant to intersectionality is pointing out how conditional pretty much every privilege and oppression can be, but it acknowledges this complexity in order to build a more robust way to talk about patriarchy and other systems of oppression.

and at the end of the day, if i know nothing else about the place i'm going and want to ensure my smoothest interactions with people there? i'm going with the vest and Oxford shirt or the tank top and jacket rather than the flowery blouse.

and while yes, it took a lot of fighting to get even here, you can't tell this story without also asking why men in dresses are still largely met with ridicule by most of society. was it because the equivalent fight wasn't fought? or was it because patriarchy is more amenable to people seeking or emulating masculinity than people rejecting it?

NO IT ISN'T. IT LITERALLY ISN'T.

And that's a fucked up thing to try to imply to someone who was correctively assaulted for just verbally expressing the desire to present more masculine.

You are actively denying the lived realities of people just because you haven't personally experienced it and that's a terrible thing to do to other trans people.

Apparently it's oppositional sexism when people classed as women and girls (which inherently includes trans women because I get accused of saying shit I'm not) are violently corrected for expressing masculinity. And not just like. sexist Patriarchal coercion.

While gender expression is thus less explicitly criminalized than sexual orientation—the same project reports 66 countries that criminalize same-sex relations between consenting adults—LBQ+ people interviewed for this report repeatedly named gendered discrimination against masculine gender expressions in particular as the catalyst for a lifetime of economic marginalization, discrimination and harassment at work, psychological abuse, and physical and sexual violence. [...]

Nadia, an LBQ+ activist in Lebanon recounted how, in 2019, a man in Beirut threatened to shoot her after she defended a female friend he was sexually harassing: "If you are butch-presenting, there’s an attitude from men of “you think you’re a man, we’re going to treat you like one, but we know you can’t handle it.” If your girlfriend is being harassed in a bar and you try to protect her; if you’re femme, you’ll be sexually harassed along with her. But butches get punched. The violence is immediate. This is why we don’t go out much. I had a gun pulled on me once because I stood up to a guy aggressively hitting on a friend of mine. He threatened to use it and said multiple times: “I’ll show you” and “you’re trying to become a man.” It’s not just about inflicting violence on your body; it’s about proving you’re not as strong as you’re pretending your body is. This stuff is way more nuanced than men trying to “show you what you’re missing” by raping you. It’s not just about “here is the dick you need sexually because you’re a lesbian.” It’s about “here is the dick you aspire to physically have; I’m going to show you that you cannot have it.” It’s about putting queer women in their place. A stark reminder about violence against those who struggle to take up space. [...]

LBQ+ advocates in Argentina, El Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and the US reported that from a young age, styles of dress read as masculine, gender-nonconforming, or androgynous resulted in threats from parents to remove girls from school, compounding the already precarious access to education that girls face globally. A 2017 Human Rights Watch report examining discrimination against LGBT students in the Philippines found that “teachers scrutinized girls they considered ‘butch’ or masculine, and took steps to separate them from other girls to prevent them from becoming close.” One 22-year-old bisexual woman who had attended high school in Manila told Human Rights Watch that more masculine-presenting girls were “especially targeted.” [...] As a UNESCO report on discrimination and bullying in school noted, “[e]xclusion and stigma in education can also have life-long impacts on employment options, economic earning potential, and access to benefits and social protection.” According to interviews, if women continued to wear these same styles of masculine-coded dress later in life, they experienced employment discrimination. This included rejection from jobs in indoor employment otherwise available to lower- and middle-class women in many countries, such as in hotels, restaurants, catering, cleaning, administration, and secretarial work. [...]

LBQ+ activists in Argentina, El Salvador, and Kyrgyzstan told Human Rights Watch similar stories about masculine-presenting LBQ+ people in their communities being routinely pushed into precarious jobs with poor labor rights practices (farm work, sex work, and auto shops, respectively) or primarily male-dominated fields where they face further forms of abuse. Rosa, an LBQ+ activist in El Salvador, reported that several butch lesbians in her community were compelled to work as sex workers after being repeatedly rejected from work they were otherwise qualified for, such as jobs in restaurants, food trucks, and hotels due to wearing pants, collared shirts, and their hair short. As sex workers, they were exposed to a wide range of human rights violations and dangers. [...] "Whenever a lesbian sex worker is detained, they say we are insane, that we are lesbians because we haven’t had a good fuck. Before they take you to jail, you get raped. Then they bring you and charge you. You are targeted as a sex worker, hunted down on the street the way we all are, and then you are punished like a lesbian. When police raid brothels and homes, the masculine lesbians get treated “like men.” This means more forceful handcuffing, kneeling, and stripping their shirts off." According to Rosa, police are “far more brutal” to masculine-presenting queer women, which is particularly dangerous given that their masculine-presentation is a large part of what originally forced many LBQ+ people into sex work. Thus, masculine-presenting queer women’s discrimination in employment may lead to police violence after being pushed into sex work.

also notice how this report covers areas that aren't the US or Canada or the UK or Australia. hence why ftmtftm said ONLY IN SOME COUNTRIES is people seen as women wearing pants (not men's pants, women's pants) socially acceptable.

tbh i think at a certain point, trying to distinguish between oppositional & traditional sexism fails because they necessarily function as one. anti-queerness is fundamental to patriarchy, as fundamental as misogyny is, and misogyny is inherently anti-queer as is misandry, and anti-queerness is inherently misogynistic and misandristic.

But I do want to point out that it's not quite accurate to say adults who come out are literally never treated the same way, because many disabled adults are likewise treated as property without autonomous rights. There are disabled trans adults who can't transition because their caregiver(s) who are in charge of their medical decisions don't think the disabled adult is capable of actually knowing their own gender. I've worked with several people like this in my job.

This is a really good example of how TERFs disguise their attacks against trans men, and why it’s so harmful to consider TERF attitudes towards trans mascs as infantilizing.

The post is made to appear sympathetic to the man they are mocking. “Look at this poor ‘girl’ and how he’s mutilated himself” sounds sympathetic, especially to trans people who are subjected to aggressive, direct attacks on their identities and humanity.

But this performative sympathy is just a front so that TERFs can enjoy being cruel without appearing as the aggressor. This allows the audience to still enjoy the pleasure of engaging in cruelty while dressing it up as pity.

This plays into the broader tactic TERFs deploy with trans mascs.

Rarely ever do they confront us directly the way they do with trans women.

In fact, because they see us as women, their primary objective is to make sure we are never ever heard at all, so that they can maintain the narrative that none of us would ever transition of our own free will.

Instead, they poison the well. They talk to our “handlers”. Our parents, our doctors and psychiatrists, our husbands, boyfriends, our pastors.

The veneer of sympathy is not to appeal to trans men. It is to appeal to those they see as having ownership over us. When trans men fight back against this, the malice comes out in full force.

Ageless Linux intends to force the issue before the California state supreme court, then ultimately (probably) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It's a stupid, dangerous law, voted into place by legislators who either don't understand the core issue OR knowingly voted for it because they're assholes.

California is an influential state in the US. Many laws & regulations passed there eventually trickle out to most states. That's why it's worrisome to see this kind of thing rammed through, and why it's important to fight it.

so predictably this isn't true

i actually watched the lecture and while i don't agree with all of amin's core positions (he's a gender abolitionist and i'm not, so i would expect that) when he talks about crossdressers he clearly does so in a context of a case study of historical self-identified "heterosexual transvestites." to roughly oversimplify, the talk as a whole is about the theory of identity construction as a function of class and racialization and how economic opportunity = leisure time = space to create Identity as separate from Action. basically, that white trans women, especially those attracted to women, historically delayed transition because they had more to lose than black and latina women, and the barrier between the lived experience and internal sense of self created certain identity-forward ways of thinking about gender

I hate posts like these that attempt to split hairs over individual oppression points to argue that one group of trans people has privilege over another (especially since, if we must, trans men notably have higher rates of sexual assault and less representation in government than trans women, facts that get conveniently ignored or even actively erased in these convos) because well. It’s unproductive, but even moreso it becomes a breeding ground for rank TERFish transphobic bile to be spread around uncritically:

The fact is that the true trans pay gap isn't between trans men and trans women, it's between white trans people and racialized trans people. This whole thing where we're bickering about which trans gender is doing better is fucking ridiculous when racialized trans people are on average, experiencing worse outcomes than white trans people on every metric.

Do trans men have systemic power over trans women? There really isn't a good evidence to back that up, nor is there any reason to believe the reverse. There is no steady metric for measuring the systemic power of one portion of a tiny minority against another, and it's stupid to bicker about it when we already know that different groups of trans people need support with different issues. Non-exhaustively, trans women tend to need support against stranger violence, and exclusion from education, and trans men tend to struggle with domestic violence, and discrimination in hospitals- and all trans people have higher rates of discrimination in all these fields than cis people. Most the issues trans people face are intimately connected to exploitation and violence at the hands of cis people- I mean not least because they are 98-99.6% of the population

The U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in the first half of 2026, Black women's weekly median earnings were $956, or 85% of white women's, while Hispanic women earned $901 (80% of white women's).

Does this mean that Hispanic women are more racially oppressed than Black women, because they earned 5% less than Black women, who earn 25% less than white women, who earn 30% less than white men? Does the fact that Asian men and women earn more than their white counterparts mean that Asian people are the least affected by racism, and that Asian women maybe even have privilege over white women?

No. That would be piss poor social analysis, and the kind of analysis that is more concerned with fighting over whose got it The Worst instead of developing a sociopolitical consciousness that facilitates liberation. This one statistic can tell us some things about gender and racial oppression, but shit is always More Complicated Than That, and oppression is always far too complex and holistic to ever be reduced down to any one statistic.

It is bad that trans women are so economically fucked over. It puts them in danger in multiple ways and should be discussed. That people act like this discussion needs to happen in a hierarchical way is not a neutral thing. Especially when different studies find different trans groups are more/less affected by an issue, but pretty much universally find trans people are more affected than cis people.

Also, since it wasn't mentioned above: the HRC could only look at "full-time (35 or more hours/week), non-farm worker employees employed in the public or private sector" in this study. They themselves pointed out that "were we to include the wages of part-time/temporary workers, as well as non-wage earners, it is likely the gaps between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ adults would widen beyond what is reported here" so this study also does not represent the full extent of trans labor.

Finally I think everyone should read this study, because it presents a much more detailed and nuanced approach to this topic than just looking at things based on gender identity alone:

When estimating outcomes gaps across the two transgender groups by assigned birth-sex, AMAB GQNBs and AFAB GQNBs have significantly lower incomes and are more likely to be in part-time employment when compared with their MTF and FTM counterparts, respectively. However, when estimating outcome gaps within the ‘Trans’ group, FTMs have significantly lower incomes, are more likely to be in part-time work, but are less likely to be unemployed compared with MTFs. Within the ‘GQNB’ group, AFAB GQNBs have significantly lower incomes and are more likely to be in part-time employment, compared with their AMAB GQNB counterparts. [...] The degree to which respondents have legally, socially, medically and/or surgically transitioned varies substantially within each transgender group. To test the sensitivity of my results to this variation, I compare the incomes of MTFs and FTMs who began living full-time as their gender identity earlier in life, to those who waited until later. I find that the significantly lower incomes associated with FTMs compared with MTFs disappears when restricting the sample to those who began living full-time at a younger age. The incomes of MTFs who begin living full-time as female at a younger age are lower than those who wait, while the incomes of FTMs who begin living full-time as male at a younger age are higher.

sorry but this is maybe THE most annoying response i see to discussion of anti-transmasculinity and exorsexism in trans spaces.

i hate to use "sides" in this context because things are not that binary and they are not that uniform. but like. i need to fucking remind everyone that one ""side"" created the term transunity specifically to call for less infighting and for transfeminist theory that integrates all kinds of trans experiences, and the ""other side"" immediately began insisting the people behind it must hate trans women.

its so fucking infuriating. like jesus fucking christ you do not need to condescend to us about how this infighting shit is gonna get people killed!!!!! WE KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! & its ESPECIALLY fucking gross when you type this shit on a post about intercommunity bigotry, as if the people being anti-transmasc or exorsexist and the people talking about how that is bad are equally contributing to infighting.

this discourse is not actually pointless or meaningless i'm sorry. there is real shit, real rotten fetid wounds in our community, that we have never properly addressed (& that goes for the anti-transmasculinity, the exorsexism, the transmisogyny, the biphobia, the misogyny, the aphobia, the racism, the classism, everything). we cannot just "stop fighting" because the REASON there is so much fighting is because people - bi people, aspec people, transmascs & nonbinary people, queer people of color - keep saying "hey this shit is hurting us, can we talk about it & stop doing it?" and then other people react to that like its a personal attack on them to have somebody question their emotional support lateral violence. and then because the internet is built to incentivize outrage over productive solutions & meaningful community-building, it becomes something huge and messy and shitty, and the core problem struggles to ever get actually properly addressed.

most of the time, at best, you get what happened post-ace discourse, where the community goes "fine okay the A can stay" but never actually grapples with the acephobia and arophobia or amatonormativity, never grapples with the extent of the hostility towards aspec people, and everyone just pretends it was silly terminally online teen arguments that had nothing to do with real life, and we return to a slightly modified status quo. and that is not fucking improvement.

There are so many reasons a person may choose not to come out and there is no reason a person would owe the public or a stranger that information. Certainly it's not owed simply because someone is famous.

It is not fair to ask us to explain your experiences for you: use feminism correctly (meaning actually understand how intersectionality works, so not transandrophobia) to do your own knowledge production, and listen to ours.

The greater vehicle kind of feminism associated with bell hooks is also an analytic technology designed to fit a specific purpose: to defend the place of feminisms in society and show how the abolition of patriarchy is widely beneficial. It does not mean that feminism should center people who benefit from and thus uphold patriarchy. Feminism as a political project can benefit everyone, but it is not meant to help uplift everyone's knowledge production equally. Men already have dominant knowledge production.

Once again we have men barging into women's theoretical traditions and going "why aren't you making this about meeeeeee". Transfeminism is not about you. Men are prioritized, favored and rewarded, and among trans people this means trans men. Thus, acknowledging, being generally aware of and taking seriously trans men's experiences and problems is what we've been doing; it is the background radiation of trans issues in a way that trans women's issues are not.

Did I get that right?

It was Audre Lorde who said "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change."

In the discussion on trans oppression and liberation, the master's tools are the insistence that trans people slot neatly into cis-based gender dynamics. Insisting that TRANSGENDER men, just by virtue of existing as men, benefit from and uphold patriarchy is you trying to temporarily beat the master at his [ or in this case "her", since we're talking about building off a foundationally cis woman built framework of oppression ] own game.

It absolutely benefits you as a trans woman to use oppositional sexism to insist that your oppression is parallel to that of cis women and that subsequently trans men's positions in society must parallel cis men's. It gives you the spot at the feminist table that you do deserve to have..... in an underhanded way that throws other trans people under the bus and bars us from conversations on gendered oppression despite the fact that ALL transphobia experienced by ALL trans people boils down to being gender identity based oppression.

Is the feminist movement NOT founded on gender identity based liberation at its core? Is that, at the very least, not ALLIED with the rest of the trans community in a meaningful way where both might mutually benefit from a deeper understanding and analysis of gender that does include talking about masculinity and manhood and the social construction of gender as a whole?

It's not about centering men, you sound like the truscum and transmeds that used to fearmonger about how acknowledging nonbinary people will be the death of binary trans liberation in the 2010's.

It's about bare minimum just acknowledging that manhood is an important construct in the conversation on gender liberation and that marginalized manhood is an important vehicle for discussing and dismantling gendered systems of oppression too. It's about imagining gendered oppression more complexly than woman hurt/man harm. It's about finally fucking throwing the master's tools out the gd window. And that's NOT what has been done. At all.

Talking about the gendered oppression of trans men IN ADDITION TO - not above, not before, not centred, but just alongside all other trans experiences is vital to our broader understandings of gendered oppression within transfeminist and broader feminist discussions precisely because it throws a wrench in cis-centered understandings of gendered oppression.

If you can't see that you're dogshit at material analysis.

"Make your own theory, don't expect us to do it for you"

"Okay, we made our own theory and we call it transandropho-"

"NO, you have to do it the way I tell you"

Like. If that doesn't sum up the revolving door that is the main problem I don't know what does. It's always "make your own post" and "make your own theory" until we do and it gains traction and then it becomes "shut up about this because you didn't do it the way I wanted you to" and "this is inherently lesser importance than anything I go through so why waste time talking about your problems when you should be talking about mine".

Like I get "listen to trans women" and "trust us to make theory that will support you" and I say yes, the trans woman who taught me transgender political theory grouped it all under transmisogyny because every transgender person experiences an intersection of transphobia and misogyny regardless of their actual gender and I don't disagree with her so that's my understanding, and then it becomes "you're stealing our theory and words to talk about yourself, you rely too much on women to help you, go make your own" so then I do make my own posts going back to black feminism and black transfeminism that specifically mentions us and then I get "this theory makes you functionally identical to MRAs and other politically violent men" and "by centering [trans] men you are antifeminist and actively hate women and especially trans women" and "follow our lead and listen to us and talk about our problems and stop focusing so much on yourself" and in the mean time the theory is "trans men get raped and kill themselves a lot, let's examine why this happens and see if we can prevent these tragedies".

And what exactly are these other models in feminism actually account for trans men's experiences as trans men? Oh wait, you think trans men's only struggles are identical to cis women's, the model you're thinking of is cisfeminism, which doesn't account for us. Way to miss the entire point of the post and speak over people you should have solidarity with.

Anyway, it is the job of ANYONE dedicated to gender liberation to have solidarity with and account for and listen to the other marginalized genders in their community. Not prioritize, just listen and amplify suppressed voices.

hi hi! I understand your scepticism, but I lived Here for half a decade:

and nnno we don't call it "winter" when it's december even though we're TECHNICALLY in the northern hemisphere. because it is 35+ degrees during december and 35+ degrees during july and 35+ degrees every other time of the year as well. so it doesn't really make sense to reference the typical northern/southern seasons when you live right on the equator!

Second reblog. tags. #i like the implication that there are multiple other hemispheres #<- prev I know right #do we have posters from mars or something?

A map of 13 countries lying on the equator. Kiribati. Indonesia. Maldives. Somalia. Kenya. Uganda. Democratic republic of Congo. Congo. Gabon. São Tomé and Príncipe. Brazil. Colombia. Ecuador.

Third reblog. Tags. #ehhh that last bit feels like a stretch. #do people in equatorial places really not even reference seasons like just as a way to break up the year?

Child calls police.

Police side with parent. Police reprimand child for calling police.

Parent abuses child extra in order to punish child for calling police.

Child now learns that they have to be 100% sure that the legal system will recognize it as abuse in order to report it.

Child goes on internet and sees horrific acts of violence committed by parents being celebrated.

Child can never report abuse because no matter how bad abuse gets, child can never be 100% sure that the legal system will recognize it as abuse.

Parent can now be abusive with zero limits.