| Queer | no gender, any pronouns | 🍉 Free Palestine, Fuck the IOF 🖕 | stop erasing trans men | "#reading list" for my list of recommended reading material if you want a more technical understanding of environmentalism
You can do this yourself. You can have this. You can make your world a more beautiful place. You can have a space full of native wildlife. All you need to do is find some native wildflowers and wait for their seeds to mature. Find or organize a seed swap and prioritize native plants. Liberate some seeds or plants if you happen to find some at a store. It doesn't have to be a yard either. It can be in a nearby park or along a sidewalk next to your apartment or in an empty abandoned lot down the street. You don't need permission, you just have to make sure you aren't caught. Wearing a hi-vis vest and looking confident and professional can carry you very far.
A suburban residential landscape featuring Texas native plants.
Visit bplant.org and follow the link below. After arriving on the main page, click on “REGIONS”. You will arrive at a page with a map on it.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
In the 10 years that I have worked on sharing queer history, I have never been attacked as intentionally and with as much consistency as I have in 2026. Most regularly, I'm called a groomer or harassed for mentioning Palestine.
I joke about it to my friends, because I don't actually have anyone in my life under the age of 20, how could I possibly be a groomer? It is easier to cope with all of it when I can laugh with people. No one finds it funny anymore, not even me.
When the first waves came calling me an anti-Semite, I felt compelled to ask some of the Jewish people in my life whether there was something I wasn't seeing. They assured me that I was doing nothing wrong, and I dug further into my studies. The further I got into researching the accusations levied against me, the more I was harassed for the moments I shared of my journey.
As a 29 year old adult, when I share that I read queer (often specifically trans) books, the comments are predictable. When I share that some of the books I read include sex, things get worse. When I post a book that discusses the experiences of queer Jewish people during the holocaust, I know that there will be immediate backlash, and there is. Then I am asked to edit a book synopsis to remove mentions of genocide from a poetry book about Palestine.
All of this to say, I have experience in what upsets these people and it is books that are being targeted. It is reading, readers, and anyone who encourages literacy that activates the worst people to respond. Which is why I HAVE to keep pushing you to read more. Read widely, read anything, read books that disagree with you, read porn, read queerly, read physically, read ebooks, read audiobooks, and fight the book bans sweeping North America.
I need you to know that people get the angriest when I read, so I cannot take my foot of the gas, and I hope this encourages you to go to your library.
Just noticed a feature in Uber where you can record audio of your ride
I happen to live in a single party consent state (in New York you can record audio conversation as long as one person knows they’re being recorded, in California all parties have to know)
So part of driving for Uber is not just giving them your location while working, but that you give them blanket consent to record you
I ended up having to take a few ubers that day, and the one after i wrote this had the message ‘driver is recording video’. Huh
Kinda forget by the time the uber arrives and get in as normal. Chat a bit with the driver. Gets quiet. I glance around. Realize i am appearing in a video feed inside the uber driver’s app. I look straight ahead and now notice the small camera wedged under the passenger seat headrest
I wonder how long uber holds on to that video. Cost of storage vs cost of legal exposure makes me think they hold on to it for at least whatever their Demand Refund window is
So be careful what you say inside an uber because they would 1000% hand footage over to cops
Lmao hahahahahaha this shit writes itself holy fucking shit
Please go be bi in any country where the predominant language is Arabic you fucking hypocrite. Any person who read the Quran and didn’t realize it was a permission slip to murder, rape, enslave and oppress is a total retard. Sorry your brain doesn’t work! Leave the USA asap
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Making this its own post since it was getting a bit beyond that poll:
Genuinely I don't feel like the trans community has ever had to meaningfully reckon with exorsexism. There's all this fucking yapping about smashing the gender binary and how cool and sexy this androgynous (cis) rockstar is, but when it comes down to it people want to cling to the binary. Because it affirms their own gender. Because it allows them to bond with cis people. Because it makes them feel normal and real and natural. Binary trans people oftentimes only want to challenge the parts of the gender binary that directly impede THEIR ability to socially claim womanhood/manhood, but will not actually challenge it anywhere else.
It comes back to the fact that cissexism and the patriarchy itself are built on the gender binary & oppositional sexism, but a lot of binary trans people (particularly those who pass and are gender conforming), knowingly or not, have this attitude of "but why do THEY (cis people) get to play with that, and I don't???" Because they are men/women, and all those OTHER men and women can simply float on the exorsexist social current without ever thinking twice about it.
There is inherently some exorsexism in all transphobia, but if you can narrate yourself and your experiences through the language of the binary, you get a level of social acceptance that other trans people (including many, many binary/-aligned trans people, and intersex people) do not. And that's why binary aligned trans people then turn around and start blaming nonbinary people and GNC trans people and anyone who continues inflaming exorsexist society for how trans people are treated.
Because to be cis is to be binary, and so, so much of trans activism has been about telling cis people that we are just like them—just regular men and women, trapped in the opposite sex body. And nonbinary people fundamentally cannot and generally will not do that. We are asking cis people to respect us and acknowledge that our genders are just as valid even if they are completely foreign to cis people, even if they are undeniably, fundamentally trans in a way that cannot be renegotiated into cisness.
That is not to say that binary trans people are less radical or less trans—there are many binary trans people I know and love who fucking hate the idea of conforming to cisness in any way. And they get fucked over by exorsexism big time. The language I'm using here (nonbinary vs binary) is itself fundamentally flawed given the actual complexity of exorsexism, but I'm feverish so I'm unfortunately not going to invent an improved paradigm in this post.
My point is that I tried so damn hard to make myself make sense to binary people. I spent years of my life knowing I was trans and torturing myself because no matter what I came out as, I always felt like a liar, nothing ever fit. I tried to be a nonbinary lesbian the way everyone wants, I tried to be a trans man in the way everyone wants, I tried to be neutral but y'know not making a big deal out of it or anything (and of course neutral people don't have any sexuality, because the minute you have a sexuality you have to align yourself with the binary, hence the "not making a big deal out of it"). I tried and tried and tried to not be a thorn in the side of the exorsexism that's so prevalent not just in society but in the trans community, I tried not to make my gender a problem for everyone. I only felt real stability and safety and humanity in myself through my gender once I let myself be how I actually am and quit cherrypicking my identity based around what wouldn't upset the implicit but STRONG gender binary in trans spaces. And it's really just so frustrating seeing binary trans people who don't ever think for a second about any of this, and even more other nonbinary people who are able to narrate themself in a way that appeals to exorsexism, all of whom act like nonbinary people who can't or won't do that are just causing problems for fun.
Nonbinary people should be at the center of not just trans activism but all anti-patriarchal activism, not to the exclusion of anybody else but because nonbinary identity so fundamentally challenges how we think about and navigate gender and its role in our society. Nonbinary people, as ourselves, CANNOT assimilate into normal society without normal society fundamentally changing how it engages with gender. And instead of seeing that as being an incredible potentiality for social change, we CONSTANTLY have OTHER TRANS PEOPLE acting like this is a huge burden on the whole community. Like what the fuck.
like bell hooks basically sums up the issues i've noticed wrt feminism & the idea that "feminism has always said the patriarchy hurts men!" yet that idea not materializing into feminists investing in men's liberation:
It was difficult for women committed to feminist change to face the reality that the problem did not lie just with men. Facing that reality required more complex theorizing; it required acknowledging the role women play in maintaining and perpetuating patriarchy and sexism. As more women moved away from destructive relationships with men, it was easier to see the whole picture. It was easier to see that even if individual men divested themselves of patriarchal privilege, the system of patriarchy, sexism, and male domination would still remain intact, and women would still be exploited and oppressed. Despite this change in feminist agendas, visionary feminist thinkers who had never been antimale did not and do not receive mass media attention. As a consequence the popular notion that feminists hate men continues to prevail.
The vast majority of feminist women I encounter do not hate men. They feel sorry for men because they see how patriarchy wounds them and yet men remain wedded to patriarchal culture. While visionary thinkers have called attention to the way patriarchy hurts men, there has never been an ongoing effort made to address male pain. To this day I hear individual feminist women express their concern for the plight of men within patriarchy, even as they share that they are unwilling to give their energy to help educate and change men. Feminist writer Minnie Bruce Pratt states the position clearly: “How are men going to change? The meeting between two people, where one opposes the other, is the point of change. But I don’t want the personal contact. I don’t want to do it…. When people talk about not giving men our energies, I agree with that…. They have to deliver themselves.” These attitudes, coupled with the negative attitudes of most men toward feminist thinking, meant that there was never a collective, affirming call for boys and men to join feminist movement so that they would be liberated from patriarchy.
Reformist feminist women could not make this call because they were the group of women (mostly white women with class privilege) who had pushed the idea that all men were powerful in the first place. These were the women for whom feminist liberation was more about getting their piece of the power pie and less about freeing masses of women or less powerful men from sexist oppression. They were not mad at their powerful daddies and husbands who kept poor men exploited and oppressed; they were mad that they were not being giving equal access to power. Now that many of those women have gained power, and especially economic parity with the men of their class, they have pretty much lost interest in feminism.
As interest in feminist thinking and practice has waned, there has been even less focus on the plight of men than in the heyday of feminist movement. This lack of interest does not change the fact that only a feminist vision that embraces feminist masculinity, that loves boys and men and demands on their behalf every right that we desire for girls and women, can renew men in our society. Feminist thinking teaches us all, males especially, how to love justice and freedom in ways that foster and affirm life. Clearly we need new strategies, new theories, guides that will show us how to create a world where feminist masculinity thrives.
^^ that last part is why anti-transmasculinity theory is so important. what is the goal but new strategies and theories that guide a new understanding of feminist masculinity (more of the quote under the cut, read the book here)
Sadly there is no body of recent feminist writing addressing men that is accessible, clear, and concise. There is little work done from a feminist standpoint concentrating on boyhood. No significant body of feminist writing addresses boys directly, letting them know how they can construct an identity that is not rooted in sexism. There is no body of feminist children’s literature that can serve as an alternative to patriarchal perspectives, which abound in the world of children’s books. The gender equality that many of us take for granted in our adult lives, particularly those of us who have class privilege and elite education, is simply not present in the world of children’s books or in the world of public and private education. Teachers of children see gender equality mostly in terms of ensuring that girls get to have the same privileges and rights as boys within the existing social structure; they do not see it in terms of granting boys the same rights as girls—for instance, the right to choose not to engage in aggressive or violent play, the right to play with dolls, to play dress up, to wear costumes of either gender, the right to choose.
Just as it was misguided for reformist feminist thinkers to see freedom as simply women having the right to be like powerful patriarchal men (feminist women with class privilege never suggested that they wanted their lot to be like that of poor and working-class men), so was it simplistic to imagine that the liberated man would simply become a woman in drag. Yet this was the model of freedom offered men by mainstream feminist thought. Men were expected to hold on to the ideas about strength and providing for others that were a part of patriarchal thought, while dropping their investment in domination and adding an investment in emotional growth. This vision of feminist masculinity was so fraught with contradictions, it was impossible to realize. No wonder then that men who cared, who were open to change, often just gave up, falling back on the patriarchal masculinity they found so problematic. The individual men who did take on the mantle of a feminist notion of male liberation did so only to find that few women respected this shift.
Once the “new man” that is the man changed by feminism was represented as a wimp, as overcooked broccoli dominated by powerful females who were secretly longing for his macho counterpart, masses of men lost interest. Reacting to this inversion of gender roles, men who were sympathetic chose to stop trying to play a role in female-led feminist movement and became involved with the men’s movement. Positively, the men’s movement emphasized the need for men to get in touch with their feelings, to talk with other men. Negatively, the men’s movement continued to promote patriarchy by a tacit insistence that in order to be fully self-actualized, men needed to separate from women. The idea that men needed to separate from women to find their true selves just seemed like the old patriarchal message dressed up in a new package.
Describing the men’s movement spearheaded by Robert Bly in her essay “Feminism and Masculinity,” Christine A. James explains:
Bly claims that women, primarily since feminism, have created a situation in which men, especially young men, feel weak, emasculated, and unsure of themselves, and that older men must lead the way back…. Bly holds up the myth of the Wild Man as an exemplar of the direction men must take and never challenges the hierarchical dualisms that are so integrally linked to the tension he perceives between men and women. Arguably, the notion of the Wild Man merely reinforces clichés about “real masculinity” instead of trying to foster a new relationship between men and women, as well as the masculine and feminine.
The men’s movement was often critical of women and feminism while making no sustained critique of patriarchy. Ultimately it did not consistently demand that men challenge patriarchy or envision liberating models of masculinity.
Many of the New Age models created by men reconfigure old sexist paradigms while making it seem as though they are offering a different script for gender relations. Often the men’s movement resisted macho patriarchal models while upholding a vision of a benevolent patriarchy, one in which the father is the ruler who rules with tenderness and kindness, but he is still in control. In the wake of feminist movement and the diverse men’s liberation movements that did not bring women and men closer together, the question of what the alternative to patriarchal masculinity might be must still be answered.
Clearly, men need new models for self-assertion that do not require the construction of an enemy “other,” be it a woman or the symbolic feminine, for them to define themselves against. Starting in early childhood, males need models of men with integrity, that is, men who are whole, who are not divided against themselves. While individual women acting as single mothers have shown that they can raise healthy, loving boys who become responsible, loving men, in every case where this model of parenting has been successful, women have chosen adult males—fathers, grandfathers, uncles, friends, and comrades—to exemplify for their sons the adult manhood they should strive to achieve.
Undoubtedly, one of the first revolutionary acts of visionary feminism must be to restore maleness and masculinity as an ethical biological category divorced from the dominator model. This is why the term patriarchal masculinity is so important, for it identifies male difference as being always and only about the superior rights of males to dominate, be their subordinates females or any group deemed weaker, by any means necessary. Rejecting this model for a feminist masculinity means that we must define maleness as a state of being rather than as performance. Male being, maleness, masculinity must stand for the essential core goodness of the self, of the human body that has a penis [note: obviously this is very cis-perisex language]. Many of the critics who have written about masculinity suggest that we need to do away with the term, that we need “an end to manhood.” Yet such a stance furthers the notion that there is something inherently evil, bad, or unworthy about maleness.
It is a stance that seems to be more a reaction to patriarchal masculinity than a creative loving response that can separate maleness and manhood from all the identifying traits patriarchy has imposed on the self that has a penis. Our work of love should be to reclaim masculinity and not allow it to be held hostage to patriarchal domination. There is a creative, life-sustaining, life-enhancing place for the masculine in a nondominator culture. And those of us committed to ending patriarchy can touch the hearts of real men where they live, not by demanding that they give up manhood or maleness, but by asking that they allow its meaning to be transformed, that they become disloyal to patriarchal masculinity in order to find a place for the masculine that does not make it synonymous with domination or the will to do violence.
Patriarchal culture continues to control the hearts of men precisely because it socializes males to believe that without their role as patriarchs they will have no reason for being. Dominator culture teaches all of us that the core of our identity is defined by the will to dominate and control others. We are taught that this will to dominate is more biologically hardwired in males than in females. In actuality, dominator culture teaches us that we are all natural-born killers but that males are more able to realize the predator role. In the dominator model the pursuit of external power, the ability to manipulate and control others, is what matters most. When culture is based on a dominator model, not only will it be violent but it will frame all relationships as power struggles.
btw i do in fact have to add at the end of this, that Abdullah Öcalan's paradigm of democratic modernity vs capitalist modernity not only centers women's liberation as a core element of true socialist and democratic liberation, but also i think Rojava and the Zapatistas in Chiapas are great examples of how actually intersectional revolutionary feminism can in fact lead to not just better conditions for women but true connection and solidarity between men and women.
THE ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF MANHOOD AND MASCULINITY ARE POSSIBLE!!!!! but they must be truly revolutionary, truly democratic, truly anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, and radically anti-patriarchal in order to succeed. feminism has not failed men by going too far, it has failed everyone by never going far enough.
men's liberation requires women's liberation" is a true statement. and equally true is "women's liberation requires men's liberation." we either seek both or we will get neither
Tumblr "feminism" is dominated by TERFs (if you exclude trans men from your "feminist" movement then you're still a TERF) and it's incredible to me that so many people will latch on to these ideologies without any sort of critical thought. I've never met someone who posts TMA/TME binary shit, let alone calling trans mascs "birthday boys" and much worse, who engages honestly and in good faith with any sort of truly feminist rhetoric. Intersectionality is just a meaningless buzzword to them. Solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community, a hallmark of modern feminism, is reduced to political lesbians/lesbian separationists and trans women who want to abandon everyone else because they hope that by enacting the cruelty of the oppressive forces at play, they'll be spared when it's pointed at them. They never analyze where bigotry is coming from, they just blame it on another marginalized group and lash out at anyone else who speaks about their own unique struggles under patriarchy. They've created this extremely simplistic model of how the world works and project it onto everyone else, and you can see the mental gymnastics they have to do in order to make reality fit into that model every time they say something like "trans men are men, and so get male privilege, which makes them oppressors and misogynists/transmisogynists." Male privilege is conditional, and it is not equally distributed; One of the biggest conditions it rests on is being cisgender, and one of the biggest examples of its inequality is the way queer, trans, intersex, nonbinary, disabled, and men of color are all treated as "not real men" for being unable to or refusing to fit into the Western ideal of "true manhood." The world isn't so neat and straightforward that you can look at any one identity that someone holds and be able to make blanket statements on their "level of oppression/privilege."
You'll see pseudo-marxists on here talk about how material analysis is important and then they'll proceed to say something along the lines of "transgender men have systemic male privilege and privilege over cis women" as if that's based in any material reality of the systemic conditions transgender men face.
If you were able to transition out of systemic misogyny into systemic male privilege, the patriarchy would not exist as we know it. Cisgender women would just be able to transition into transgender men and not only face zero consequences, but be rewarded for it too. Looking at the academic literature out there though, the actual material reality is that transgender men tend to have worse outcomes than cisgender women in almost every field— from sexual violence to amount paid to ability to access healthcare.
An actual Marxist material analysis of transgender men under our system would understand that while some of the most privileged in the community can get some very conditional male privilege off of the basis of being mistaken as cis men; however that doesn't equate to systemic access and the overwhelming majority of transgender men have never benefited from this and never will. Actual material analysis would acknowledge that transgender men outside the global north exist and face much harsher conditions and barriers to transition that transgender men in the west do not. Actual material analysis would note that transgender men, while men as in the gender identity, are never let into the group of men as a social class. Actual material analysis would note that transgender men are much more likely to be working class, unemployed, or in poverty than cisgender people and need extra support under capitalist systems that don't cater to them. Actual material analysis would be noting that there are not any transgender men who are in positions of significant political power, and if they were accepted as men (the socialpolitical class) they would be overrepresented into positions of power and privilege as opposed to consistently erased and left to die.
An intersectional, Marxist analysis of the material reality of transgender men would see them as a marginalized group who is disproportionately burdened and erased within our society— a group that has no access to systemic patriarchal or capitalistic power in any way.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
How one man’s quest to remember everything helped usher in a new era.
"Bell eventually started wearing a camera around his neck that regularly snapped photos on a timer, an altimeter, and a GPS receiver that tracked his location.
The idea was to create a 'surrogate memory' — a trove of stored data to supplement the flawed recall of his human mind.
... It wasn’t long before others began to notice what his team was doing – blending computing with cameras, sensors, and memories.
The practice became known as 'lifelogging.' And soon, the U.S. military came calling.
Specifically, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — or DARPA. The agency is responsible for developing innovative and often secret technology for the U.S. military.
Bell said he discussed his ideas about lifelogging with Google Glass-developer Thad Starner, who later conducted DARPA-funded research on body-worn sensors for soldiers.
Researchers at DARPA believed that the library of data gathered via lifelogging could be fed into AI models to predict human decision-making.
... Privacy advocates and lawmakers worried the program would be used for reasons other than tracking troop locations. How long until all American lives were logged and analyzed?
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, clandestine surveillance programs were being uncovered and stomped out left and right.
One of those programs was called Total Information Awareness. Its existence was revealed by the New York Times in 2002.
... The program’s description was comically menacing – the vision of a 'virtual, centralized, grand database' on the actions of countless Americans and foreign nationals. Even the program’s logo seemed ripped out from some conspiracy theory fever dream: the image of an all-knowing eye atop a pyramid gazing on the world.
...So, in 2003, Congress canceled the Total Information Awareness program.
And the whole issue also cast shade on DARPA’s LifeLog program, which now seemed like just another excuse to pry.
... On February 4, 2004, DARPA shut down LifeLog.
It was the very same day that a skinny college student named Mark Zuckerberg officially launched a new website called The Facebook.
... Following the creation of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital fund created by the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. intelligence community has become a big investor in Silicon Valley firms that mine data collected by Facebook and other social media sites – an influential relationship some technology companies publicly celebrate.
Facebook’s first big outside investor, Peter Theil, has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with American spy agencies."
He didn't fear anybody. He had those people so scared they had to kill him. They couldn't buy him, they couldn't frighten him, they couldn't reach him.
"Patrice Lumumba was the greatest Black man who ever walked the African continent. He didn't fear anybody. He had those people so scared they had to kill him. They couldn't buy him, they couldn't frighten him, they couldn't reach him."
The CIA had their chief chemist and head of the MKUltra program (Sidney Gottlieb) supply an asset in Congo with toxins (I believe it was anthrax but I might be mistaken) contained in a hypodermic needle to inject it into Patrice Lumumba's toothpaste. The plot ultimately failed, either due to the asset getting cold feet or, according to a rumor, because Lumumba didn't brush his teeth out of the fear of his toothpaste being poisoned (I've read both explanations but am more inclined to believe the first one. The rumor sounds more like a falsehood spread after the fact to paint him as paranoid and unclean/unhealthy), but he was later executed by a firing squad created by adversarial Congolese politicians and their Belgian counterparts with the support of the US and the UK.
I got one of the Hasbara bots texting me lmao. Anyways, if it isn't obvious, don't respond to these texts. Friends for Peace is a fake organization. This is an Israeli propaganda campaign run by Trump's former campaign manager.
The orgs don’t appear to exist, but they trace back to a former Trump aide's PR firm and an Israeli gov't contract
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
It amazes me that I don't see more people making this comparison:
He's just straight up copying the nazi eagle crest at this point. It's almost too on the nose. Maybe there are people on other platforms pointing this out, but I don't really see it on here at all.
Amid this trans discourse I think about how my first introduction to trans identities came in high school when my friend came out as a trans man, the only trans person in our rural school. I had recently told him I was ace and attracted to men and so I became one of the first people he came out to. I remember him telling me to keep it quiet until he felt confident enough to start transitioning publicly and the discussion we had when he decided he wanted his friends to use his preferred pronouns in public conversations.
When I think about queer solidarity I think about that a lot and how meaningful it was because that was around the time ace discourse had devolved into "asexual isn't a valid queer identity" and the blanket assertions that ace people are 1) all fem, 2) going through a "phase," and 3) straight people masquerading as queer for attention while still retaining "straight privilege", none of which describe me. And now we're here saying a lot of the same stuff about trans mascs/men and it just feels shitty because I know what it feels like to constantly have your identity be mocked and erased. I'll always defend trans men against this transandrophobic bullshit, it's the least I can do to repay the solidarity I received from the trans masc community when I was the subject of exclusionary rhetoric.
