Lapsus Lapsiis

Did you know there's a gap in my baseboards? I sure didn't!

Fortunately she's easy to lure out, because hers is the greed described in the bible. She knows her name but the problem is that verbal recall is never, ever going to be as valuable as a warm, humid hole (because ofc the dishwasher was going when this happened), so I had to lure her gluttonous ass out with a reptilink.

Anyway, I keep seeing transandrophobia discourse that uses the argument, "transmisogyny is real but transandrophobia is not real, for the same reason misogynoir is real but misogyn-(white)-y isn't. Because being male or white isn't an oppressed identity."

And I think the analogy is the wrong analogy. For misogynoir, gender and race are DIFFERENT axes, and as such something like misogynoir is the combined experience of two SEPARATE axes of oppression. "Being trans" and "what your gender is" are NOT different axes. Which gender you have transitioned into is a detail OF the trans experience! Comparing this to intersecting two separate axes (race and sex) is fundamentally the wrong analogy!

Gay men and lesbian women both experience homophobia. They also have different experiences OF homophobia depending whether they're MLM or WLW. I think this is a significantly better analogy because, like with being trans, "same gender attraction" and "what gender you are" are NOT independent axes.

I would never fault a gay man for talking about the kinds of homophobia gay/bi men face, or a lesbian woman for talking about the kinds of homophobia targeted at lesbian/bi woman. Because there are some different societal reasons that people direct hate at men-loving-men and women-loving-women, which are, inextricably, tied to how society demands different genders act.

Like you cannot say "men shouldn't separately identify and talk about the kind of homophobia experienced by men, because men aren't oppressed" because being male is inextricably linked to how that homophobia is experienced

And in that vein, there are different societal reasons that people direct hate at FTM and MTF people, which are all within transphobia. But the kind of transphobia someone experiences is inextricably linked to what the person's transitioned gender is, and what society wants them to be. This is not introducing a second, uncorrelated privileged axis! This is a detail of the transphobia! Details are allowed to have names! This is different kinds of real people's lived transphobia and acting like someone is throwing in an unrelated axis of privilege (like being white, or being upper-class) is disingenuous!

Also, you may notice, I'm strongly advocating for people's voices to be heard and the details to matter! I want trans women to talk, LOUDLY, about transmisogyny. And its specifics and why it matters! This is not shouting down any of that! Talk about your experiences and the parts that are specifically transmisogynistic! I just think it's bonkers that somewhere along the way, people who think every single identity class is a perfectly independent, perpendicular stat bar that shows up on a character customization screen came around and decided half of the experience of transphobia needs to be un-named and un-personed because someone heard "men" and looked that word up in their privilege stat book and got real scared.

if someone mocks a trans woman for looking "masculine", are they being transphobic? or are they being misogynistic, expecting women to conform to narrow hyperfeminine beauty standards? the answer is both, obviously. at the same time. thus, transmisogyny.

let's apply this to transmisandry/transandrophobia. if someone mocks a trans man for looking "feminine", are they being transphobic? or are they being misandrist, assuming that men must conform to a narrow hypermasculine beauty standard? well of course they're being transphobic, but assuming that people must look and act and behave in gender stereotypical ways is actually just misogyny again. it's your classic sexism and gender roles. it's not misandry, so it shouldn't be called that. and even though it's misogyny, calling this experience transmisogyny would be confusing and misgendering. so we can just call it transphobia, because that's what it is.

May I present the best apple:

Pre-diabetes was rejected as a diagnosis by the World Health Organization (although it is used by the US and UK) - the correct term for the condition is impaired glucose tolerance. Approximately 2% of people with "pre-diabetes" go on to develop diabetes per year. You heard that right - TWO PERCENT. Most diabetics actually skip the pre-diabetic phase.

There are currently no treatments for pre-diabetes besides intentional weight loss. (Hmm, that's convenient, right?) There has yet to be evidence that losing weight prevents progression from pre-diabetes to T2DM beyond a year. Interestingly, drug companies are trying to persuade the medical world to start treating patients earlier and earlier. They are using the term “pre-diabetes” to sell their drugs (including Wegovy, a weight-loss drug). Surgeons are using it to sell weight loss surgery. Everyone’s a winner, right? Not patients. Especially fat patients.

Check out these articles:

Prediabetes: The epidemic that never was, and shouldn’t be

The war on ‘prediabetes' could be a boon for pharma—but is it good medicine?

Also - I love what Dr. Asher Larmie @fatdoctorUK has to say about T2DM and insulin resistance, so here's one of their threads I pulled from Twitter:

1️⃣ You can't prevent insulin resistance. It's coded in your DNA. It may be impacted by your environment. Studies have shown it has nothing to do with your BMI.

2️⃣ The term "pre-diabetes" is a PR stunt. The correct term is impaired glucose tolerance (or impaired fasting glucose) which is sometimes referred to as intermittent hyperglycemia. It does not predict T2DM. It is best ignored and tested for every 3-5yrs.

3️⃣ there is no evidence that losing weight prevents diabetes. That's because you can't reverse insulin resistance. You can possibly postpone it by 2yrs? Furthermore there is evidence that those who are fat at the time of diagnosis fair much better than those who are thin.

4️⃣ Weight loss does not reverse diabetes in the VAST majority of people. Those that do reverse it are usually thinner with recent onset T2DM and a low A1c. Only a tiny minority can sustain that over 2yrs. Weight loss does not improve A1c levels beyond 2 yrs either.

5️⃣ Weight loss in T2DM does not improve macrovascular or microvascular health outcomes beyond 2 years. In fact, weight loss in diabetics is associated with increased mortality and morbidity (although it is not clear why). Weight cycling is known to impacts A1c levels.

6️⃣ Weight GAIN does NOT increase the risk of cardiovascular OR all causes mortality in diabetics. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that it's better to be fat and diabetic than to be thin and diabetic.

Dr. Larmie cites 18 peer reviewed journal articles (most from the last decade) that are included in their webinar on the subject, linked below.

bypass paywall

bwah :3