Paper Cranes and Pride

tags from a different post i wanted to make their own thing because this is a good analogy i think

there's good reasons someone might be genuinely committed to gender liberation while not ascribing to the specific term "feminist." but generally when someone makes a big stink about not being an feminist but an "egalitarian," there's discomfort with what they think feminism is and what Being A Feminist means that stems from having poor experiences with feminism + hearing and seeing a lot of anti-feminist talking points + general society's lack of knowledge about good feminist works and feminist self-critique. and when your "egalitarianism" is based around not triggering your discomfort with feminism, it becomes a lot weaker, because in that discomfort lies a lot of the things that one most needs to understand to fight patriarchy.

and similarly, there are good reasons someone might be genuinely committed to discussing transmasc oppresson while not using the specific term "transandrophobia." but generally, when someone makes a big stink about not using transandrophobia, there's a discomfort with what they think the term means or how it used and what it means to be The Kind Of Person Who Uses Transandrophobia that that stems from having poor experiences with people using the term + hearing and seeing a lot of anti-transmasculine talking points + general society's lack of knowledge about good discussions on transandrophobia and self-critique of the term and how it is used.

and when your activism on behalf of transmascs is based around not triggering any discomfort with "transandrophobia" and The Kinds Of People Who Use The Term Transandrophobia, it becomes a lot weaker. because in that discomfort lies a lot of the things one most needs to understand to fight patriarchy.

^^ THIS is what actual transfeminist materialism can look like btw.

these are two entirely contradictory lines of logic, but they lead to the same conclusion. because the conclusion is the point. its a backformed theory of gender. people believe, for whatever reason, that "trans guys have it easier" is an objective fact, and then storytell an explanation for why that is that sounds right to them. and this isn't necessarily something that's done maliciously, which is key. its not about people twiddling their fingers and thinking about how to contribute to a massive conspiracy against transmascs. its about people just feeling, on a gut level, that trans guys must have it easier, by which they really mean, transmasculine suffering isn't socially visible, and it isn't natural for me to imagine it, therefore it must not exist; yet, trans suffering in general clearly exists, so there must be some reason that transmasculine suffering feels so abstract and immaterial to me and others.

even though the explanations are entirely flipped (one relies on male gender performance being highly policed and that affecting trans people assigned male more than those assigned female, the other relies on female gender performance being highly policed and that affecting trans people transitioning towards femininity more than those transitioning towards masculinity), they are both trying to take the model of "women suffer because they are women and men benefit because they are men" and contort it to explain transmasculine experiences.

this is why these explanations make very little sense when you really look at them. when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when you can only analyze gender through a cissexist lens, everything looks fundamentally cis.

cisfeminism struggles greatly to actually deal with social hatred for androgyny and intersexuality and transness, because you can make feminist arguments and feminist theory that can explain many (though clearly not all) women's experiences without ever questioning the binary.

"cissexism it is the ideology which promotes the beliefs of:

gender being an oppositional binary between men and women,

gender being inherent/objective/unchanging,

people of certain genders having certain innate traits,

gender (identity/performance) should/must be socially and institutionally policed, and

cis people's experiences of gender are the most real and important and that trans experiences of gender must be able to be put into the boxes used by cis people in order to be real or meaningful.

"trans men have it easier than trans women because [cis] men of other marginalized groups have it easier than [cis] women" is an example of cissexism as it assumes that, amongst other things, trans men are an intersection of some vague "transness" and "manhood" as defined by cis men's experience with manhood, as opposed to being a socially unique gender position under patriarchy."

Like, that phrasing actually reeks of aphobia and allonormativity (consciously or not).

Asexuality is not a lack of sexual attraction, it's experiencing little to no sexual attraction. Aromanticism is not a lack of romantic attraction, it's experiencing little to no romantic attraction.

I do not experience sexual or romantic attraction, but I don't "lack" those things. Lack implies a deficiency, a sense of incompleteness or wrongness. To lack something means that you are lacking in it, and inherently assumes that's a bad thing. That might not be the intention, but the word "lack" is just so pathologizing that I just hate using it to describe something like orientation.

My orientation is not a problem or an absence of something, it's just what I am.

I've probably mentioned making my own little microlabel once or twice but now I actually made a vector for the flag I designed so lol

Uniattraction is supposed to be an aspec identity where one feels equally attracted to everyone applicable to their orientation. Whether that's very, a little, or not at all. I coined this because I identify as aroace and that works for me but nothing ever seemed to describe this specific experience??

Even if I find out it's been coined before I think my flag is cute!

And nonbinary people, right?

...

...

You Have to show the same level of passion and interest that you show to future technologies and treatments that will allow people who can’t get pregnant to finally do so to future technologies and treatments that will allow people who can’t impregnate others to finally do so, btw. You simply Have To. One is not more worthy/morally virtuous than the other, one is not an easier burden to bear for those dysphoric about their current anatomy. You Must show the same level of compassion for people who grieve that their only current way to have a biological child with their partner would be to carry it themselves that you do to for people who grieve that their only current way to have a biological child with their partner would be to get them pregnant.

Asexual people getting to be open and talk about not wanting sex and never having sex is important in a world that tries constantly to sell sex to us as an inevitable activity

Disabled people fighting for the right to marry is important in a world that holds life-saving benefits hostage and prevents one from marrying

Women fighting for the right to divorce or to never marry is important in a world that pushes women into a subordinate role of "wife"

Ex-Religious people fighting for the right to leave a religion or not be forced to convert to a religion is important in a world that subjects everyone to predatory missionary work

Religious people fighting for the right to practice their religion and do so openly is important in a world that prioritized religions over one another--often Christianity but not always

And you could substitute many more things into this. Young people fight to not be infantilized by authority, but they also in some areas fight to not be adultified. Some people have to fight so hard for a variety of reasons to be able to grow out their hair. Some people have to fight so hard to be able to cut it. Some fight to be allowed to wear coverings, some fight to be allowed to wear nothing. Some fight to be left alone, some fight to get the care they need. Some fight to be able to leave, some fight to be able to stay.

None of these comparable fights are opposed to one another, because the fight isn't about the specific thing, it is all about the same thing: autonomy.

Someone's fight to wear a dress is someone's fight to wear pants is someone's fight to live alone is someone's fight to live with someone is someone's fight to be left alone by medical institutions is someone's fight to be able to medically alter their body.

It is the same fight. People who want the opposite for themselves that I want for me are my siblings. We want the exact same thing: the choice to be who we want, how we want, on our terms.

Trans activist Jamison Green's passport photos before and after HRT. Left he's age 32 (1980) Right age 41 (1989) after being on testosterone for one year (x)