Paper Cranes and Pride

especially when they are fat. especially when they are Black or Native or Asian or any racial/ethnic group that isn't white. especially when they are tall and broad and have a deep voice and a beard, and especially when they like themselves that way and still are hurt by misgendering. especially when they have gone on E and T blockers and have gotten facial feminization and vaginoplasty and have DD tits and like themselves that way and still are hurt by misgendering (even when people think they should be grateful for it, even when it feels like the lesser of two evils). especially when they transition in ways people see as "only halfway" and dress androgynous and use contradictory labels and call themselves femboys in the same breathe they do tgirls and they like themselves clockable as fuck and still are hurt by transphobia and exorsexism.

As a trans-androgynous person, what the hell is this? Are we not allowed to be happy about who we are???

Wonderfully faggotty trans women who fuck around with gender and sexuality and do drag* were hugely influential when it came to my own realization that I not only could but also explicitly *wanted* to blur the lines between man and woman too. I owe them so much. We share this wonderful space in gay and trans identity together that I'm eternally thankful for and despise RuPaul for erasing.

Are they a choice he has made, or are they a circumstance he simply has to live with? Is he low-income, does he have health care, does his health care cover gender confirming surgery? Does he have medical conditions that make binding dangerous? Will his family block him from pursing the surgery? Does his partner beg him not to lop them off because they’re so fun to play with? Will his transphobic boss get suspicious if he takes time off and returns with a flat chest?

Why are we assuming that the choice he has made now is the choice he will make forever, or a choice made without coercion?

And if he does retain his breasts fully of his own volition... why are we disparaging him for making a decision about the shape of his own body?

I think ultimately I just need to say this as its own post and not a response that would get distracted from the actual point by coming inherently framed by a preexisting statement.

Asserting that someone can’t be aromantic (and instead has to identify as some other type of aro-related label) because they “experience” any amount/type/frequency of “romantic attraction” is gatekeeping, counterproductive amatonormativity.

It’s saying that involuntary, nebulous and personal and poorly-defined emotions - regardless of frequency, interpretation, context, or significance to the person in question - ultimately override any other concerns that a person may have, in how they want to contextualise themself internally and socially-structurally, via identifying with a given label.

And when it comes particularly to romance, and this concept we’ve created of romantic orientation, that is extraordinarily dangerous, and extraordinarily reinforcing of the notion that romance is not only more significant than other relationships to others and oneself, but also organically real instead of socially constructed. Whether you “feel romantic attraction” or not - why is this the defining factor? What is “romantic attraction”, but another form of the idea that romance, is, again, biological rather than cultural? What exactly makes something “romantic attraction” when you feel things that another person might call that, but that you actively refuse to contextualise as being “romantic” at all? Why is this supposed to be more important than, for example, how amatonormativity has shaped one’s life and understanding of relationships and sense of self, and how one wants to push back against that network of ideas? And so pushing people out of one identity, essentially saying “even in this community where the point is that romance is not essential or the most important, the fact that you are in some fashion `closer’ to the ideal of a person acceptable to amatonormativity, means you have to take on an identity specifically highlighting that greater degree of closeness” - that is not okay.

First of all: of course, you don't have to identify as ace if you're sex-repulsed/sex-averse, but feel like your attraction has something else going on that's important to you. And of course, you can identify as ace if you're sex-favorable, but feel like your lack or near-lack of attraction is important to you too. Nothing I am about to say negates those things.

However, for some people, sex aversion/repulsion is the most important factor in falling under the mantle of asexuality. The most important factor in resonating with the language of asexuality, finding a home in the asexual community, and considering asexuality both an identity they can take pride in, and use to communicate their experiences.

As useful as it can be to describe and discuss sexual attraction, said sexual attraction is ultimately a social construct that may be impossible to parse, uncomfortable to parse, inapplicable, and/or irrelevant to many on the asexual spectrum. Many of us active in the asexual community are familiar, either firsthand or secondhand, with how slippery the concept of sexual attraction can be — the turtles in ponds metaphor, the search for something you're not sure you even know the shape of. What's the boundary between attraction and non-attraction, between sexual and sensual and aesthetic?

Really, should something so slippery and confusing be the only metric we're allowed to define ourselves by? I argue it can be useful for many, but should never be a requirement — and personally, it's not how I define myself. I identify as asexual in part because the question of "Do you experience sexual attraction?" is fundamentally impossible for me to answer. An intractable problem, which I reject the need to answer or solve in order to know myself as a person.

Moreover, asexuality has a long history, serving as a useful term and community to ace-specs with a wide variety of experiences with attraction, desire, and action. While the "Non-Libidoists" of the early 2000's were by no means correct that a lack of interest in sex/masturbation should the only avenue to an asexual identity, they highlight that aversion and indifference to sex have been many people's reason to find a home in asexuality, throughout much of that term's usage.

Excerpts from two ace authors, in Refusing Compulsory Sexuality and The Invisible Orientation

Multiple Ways to Come to an Asexual Identity

This 3-part blog post on ambiguity and specificity, culminating in:

"But if specific definitions are forcing people to pick identities contrary to their preferences, how much sense does that make?  As we saw at the beginning of the series, there are plenty of people who identify with asexuality primarily because they are sex-averse.  Whether they experience sexual attraction may be unimportant, unknown, or ambiguous to these people.  These are people within the community, so here you can’t say the definers have more knowledge than the adopters.  I think it puts into question whether definers have ever had superior knowledge at all." — Siggy

History of Asexual Definitions (A Summary)

"In this context, I think the definition 'a person who does not experience sexual attraction' was intended to fill the need of a definition to be used for the purpose of asexual visibility rather than as the one that the community was based on." — Andrew Hinderliter

An extremely similar argument regarding aromanticism. (Intuitively, because much like sexual attraction, romantic attraction is socially constructed.)

You'll hear "asexuality is purely about attraction, not action" a lot in defense of how asexuals who have sex are still asexual — and, to be clear, asexuals who have sex are still asexual, resoundingly so, and including them is important, I highlighted them in the original post for a reason — but "attraction only, not action" is not the correct argument to make for their inclusion! The correct argument is "different asexual people will be asexual for different reasons, where some people consider their attraction/lack thereof the most important factor, regardless of whether they have sex, whereas other people consider their aversion to sex the most important factor, regardless of whether they experience sexual attraction — and they are all equally asexual." The point is that we all get to decide for ourselves what the most important factor in defining our sexual orientation is. Attraction for some, actual sexual interest for others, probably a secret third thing for even more people too.

oestrogen tracker is here.

testosterone tracker is here.

if you experience any disability or neurodivergency please fill out this form. it is equally important to me to have data that says progesterone doesn't affect autism or testosterone doesn't make you hard of hearing or whatever, as it is to document changes. so if you have any health condition. please fill it out. even if it to say "no change". i am begging you all.

So let’s rephrase it.

“Do trans men belong in women’s spaces clinics that offer services meant for those with vaginas, uteruses, etc?” If they have the relevant anatomy that needs care, then obviously yes. I’m sorry, do you want trans men to get cancer and die because it went undetected too long? Because that’s how you get trans men to get cancer and die because it went undetected too long. Also, why is that space considered a women’s space to begin with and why should we let it stay that way?

“Do trans men belong in women’s spaces feminist advocacy groups fighting for abortion rights?” Yes because leaving trans men out means the people writing the law can simply forget trans men exist and write it in such a way where some asshole familiar with the law can use the exact wording to justify denying necessary care to a trans man because he is a trans man. If the law says “no woman should be denied access to abortion care…” and the trans man is legally a man, he will find himself in the same situation as the trans man who gets that phone call from his insurance saying “hey, sorry, but since you’re a man, we’re not covering that pap smear and you will be charged the full amount.” Not just in terms of paying either. “If you were a real man, you wouldn’t need an abortion. Come back after you fix your documents so they indicate you’re a female, but like, maybe motherhood would fix you so. Idk not my problem anymore. Goodbye!”

“Do trans men belong in women’s spaces lesbian book clubs or whatever?” They’re probably already there anyway and they’re not causing any problems just by being men in what is traditionally a women’s only thing. Plus, chances are they’ve been there since before coming out as trans so you’d just be kicking him out for coming out. I don’t have to explain to anyone why that’s kind of messed up, right?