Salem De Fleur

everybody say i love you Black trans women

#Make Racists Scared Again 2026

Share if you want people to know they should be scared to be racist around you 👊🏾

you people aren't CASTING

ya know, they made an epilogue series about that.

This is the main reason why I love SU Future!

weird unsettling music by women i love u so much

I'm especially mad at his framing of this as an issue of sex-working trans women of colour being driven to transition by "circumstance" while the concept of a gender identity is a white middle/upper class transsexual one. Experiencing poverty, racism and sex work does not turn a person trans. I don't care what flowery language he dresses this rhetoric up in, that's ultimately the claim he makes when he says transness is more about situation than identity. What do you think informs and leads to the material conditions which make it worth transitioning??????

you should understand before i continue that i am not asking every single person who is for example, say, nonbinary, to unilaterally identify themself as trans, or like, demanding that all people fit neatly into some kind of cis/trans binary or whatever, but i feel like the vibe in this swimming pool of academia right now is going to give "this is why identifying as trans is the problem ackshually." but i don't know that yet so let's keep reading!!!

"Some early users of the term cisgender, such as Enke, understood it as an analytic of the unseen privilege and power of a set of common assumptions: that gender was visible and obvious, that sex was immutable, and that gender was a natural biological expression of sex. The version of cisgender that was popularized around 2008, however, was neither an analytic of privilege nor a term for regulatory technologies of gender and sex, but rather an identity category for all non-trans people. The use of cis as an identity was intended to mark the otherwise unmarked normalcy of those who did not desire transition. Its effect, however, was to ossify the opposition between trans people and the rest. Quickly, the cis/trans binary was reinterpreted as an ontological truth. Only a discrete category of people named transgender desired transition and exhibited gender variance—the rest, cis people, were perfectly comfortable in their sexed bodies and gendered social roles." see I don't know how to explain to you that my ability to read and interpret text is like, some nbc hannibal will graham visions type shit where I get a Bad Vibe but it's like, some fucking spooky antler shit in my psyche instead of like, a coherent counter argument that springs to mind, but like, let me try to translate my the lassie the border collie signals into english: Okay, I don't know if I'm misreading, but this paragraph seems to me to be blaming trans people for their own oppression -- yes, gatekeeping wouldn't just fuck over the 'gender variant cis,' but it would, first and foremost, fuck over trans people, who would be having to jump through all the hoops to transition socially and/or medically, in whatever desired capacity. The "cis/trans" binary was already being enforced by broader society and institutions, particularly the medical institution - you know, either you're Tru Trans Who Can Be Granted The Surgery, Fetishist Who We Can't Help Sorry, or Cis. And maybe they didn't use the word "cis," (I don't know) but, like, we know what they meant. Harry Benjamin didn't need to use the word "cis" to create the "Are you a Real Trans Woman?" medicalization uquiz back in the day. This also seems to - and this is based in my background of having primarily read trans/rad/fem and brown/trans/les - seems to assert that there is some kind of attack on, like, being gnc af? When in the real world where real people live (unless you live in some hyper liberal queer city in the US?) to me it seems like the expectation is that someone who is gender nonconforming is, well, gender nonconforming, not that they're trans. the existence/acknowledgement of trans people is not erasing the gender variant cis people. but there seems to be this idea that transition seems to be regressive because "you're just going from one binary point to the other!" or whatever, when like.....it's actually extremely transgressive to reject your assigned identity? arguably moreso than "oh yeah I may not totally conform to x, but don't worry, I am x haha," though I'm not here to play "who's identity is the most radical" obviously. But like. The cis/trans binary had already existed in some form in broader society, and -- okay I just clicked on the embedded doi and I'm going to shit myself. this was published in the year of our lord 2022? the year of our lord tWENTY TWE- cough. I was going to say, "in the current climate we live in, it is extremely obvious how transness is not seen as a 'solution' to gender variance but rather that conservative society demands transness be eradicated, including by pushing the idea that one can be a "masculine woman" or "feminine man" even if said society will ultimately eat these people too once it finishes ripping up the transes" but you. you published this in 2022? you. i checked the citation too. the only year listed is 2022.

like i think it's because i'm not playing weed socrates now, i.e., when you hit the blunt and pretend to be socrates lounging in the symposium with all the other weed smoking philosophers and like, you start talking about hypothetical philosophical shit. except sometimes that has like. relation to real life. but like. "are we constructing some binary between cis/trans where we decide you just have to be trans to be truly liberated from the patriarhcal concept of gender?" as it seems to be the question is a stupid question to me because it's like. well in the real world where we all live that's not how it works. maybe in the weed socrates world people think if you're gnc you Must be trans but no one wants to forcefem or forcemasc your gnc af cis homies in the world where we touch grass. this essay itself talks about like. cis lesbians and gays distancing themselves from transness for respectability reasons even if it doesn't say it in exxactly those words / uses that as some kind of ... weird cudgel against trans people? I don't know how to explain it. but like. the binary was never cis/trans - or rather i'm not even sure if there's a binary, in my opinion at this point, it's more like a boot stepping on the neck of the collective populace, and then there's this very slight shift that allows for like.....some people to transition, depending on where you are in the world and what the laws are right now. but like. the transes are not coming for your gnc. stop playing weed socrates with me duck.

went back to find my place and saw the "We may generatively extend Butler’s questioning of the status of heterosexuality within lesbian theorization in 1998 to the role of cisgender today." ladies is it hetero to fuck women

JANE WARD MENTION

like i don't care if some heterosexuals would on occasion have gay sex if they had the choice, that feels mostly irrelevant to my concerns + if we can dismantle the current hegemony then you can have as much kinsey-whatever-number straightgay sex as you want

okay so the preceding part of that paragraph is "The prehistory of heterosexuality reveals why this is the case. Before heterosexuality, there were the normals, and there were the gender var- iants—fairies and queens, butches and ‘‘he-shes,’’ hermaphrodites and sexual intermediaries. Properly manly men were by definition normal (at least when it came to gender-sexuality), even when they were having (manly, insertive) sex with fairies or queens. 11 (Women, who were imagined, in different contexts, to be asexual, polymorphously perverse, or exclusively responsive to the sexual advances of others, have always been more difficult to fit into models of sexual normalcy versus deviance or of sexuality as orientation.) No wonder, then, that many normals were and remain reluctant to recategorize themselves as deviant simply because of their (gender-appropriate) same-sex practices." this is the part where i am going to look up who kadji amin is. okay so my impression is that he is likely a trans man (unless he's a cis man who is very interested in trans studies for some reason?). okay. okay. interesting. very interesting. okay. alright. okay. okay. okay. okay. this paragraph is bad. if you asked for my deeply uneducated opinion. and i will give it. as someone who hasn't read much but who is willing to work off what i know at this point. Firstly. Women's sexuality is defined entirely in terms of "available to men." This is also how you get shit like "well a women can also be shamed for being too feminine." It's because woman, in this society, is unilaterally classified as "inherently degrading/shameful," as well as the fact that part of "woman's" role is that she is supposed to be whatever man wants from her. This is an impossible task, because humans were not made to juggle being natural but not too natural, feminine but not too 'bimbo,' smart but not threateningly so, capable of wiping your ass and cooking you lunch and still having enough energy to put on a big smile and want to suck you off, etc. Literally no human on earth is made to put up with this shit. But that's what society demands from women, as society will demand impossible effort from all its underclasses. Secondly. Putting aside my personal disgust for the use of the word 'fairy' in the phrase "any normal man might have desired a fairy," and frankly, that entire phrasing -- Do you understand the world you are asking me to consider? Do you understand the world you are asking me to consider, which is full of an underclass of people who are third-sexed in their entirety due to their gender/sex or sexuality or both, whom are referred to by derogatory slurs in their entirety, whose "privilege" in that society is to be fucked by a man who won't slaughter them after the fact? Do you think that that is a society worth returning to, if it even existed as you are telling it? Do you think that it would be freeing to exist as a slur, just because one might exist as a hole that does not taint a man's reputation? If you think cisgender women were oppressed in a society where men rule, how do you think that generally goes for them - how do you think one regarded as not man (the privileged) nor woman (the second citizen), might be regarded in such a society? Must we center our lives around how acceptably fuckable we are to men?

And what of those "deviants" who don't desire a man? What of those who desire other "fairies" or "butches," who reject man's advances? What do you think happened to them? Also, do you think in this imaginary pre-heterosexuality society, gay men were never masc4masc? There is so much to this that's just -- gestures emphatically with my crushed cigarette -- bullshit. And maybe I'm just not that well read on the queer theory anime. Maybe I'm missing the fandom context. But idealizing a frankly imaginary world where all queer people who aren't domtop men exist in some sort of gay femboy miasma is fucking nightmarish. Under that system, you would still be nothing but just a hole. Frankly, we live in a version of this society already -- one where men find it perfectly acceptable to, on the sly, have sex with those they deem lesser/not worthy of wife-ing, and they enact violence on those people as they enact violence on their own wives. The core root is the patriarchy. You have to dismantle the patriarchy. If you don't root out the damn patriarchy, then you don't get rid of the power imbalance that enables violence and dehumanization to those with less systemic power. absolute power corrupts absolutely. what the fuck. yes i got so ughhhhhhed out i hit post limit.

okay I'm so brave and full of light and I don't want to do my actual work because it's soul sucking in a different way. let's break this down "Butches, in fact, remain common, due both to the high value of masculinity in lesbian culture and to the overall ill fit between female-assigned people and the hegemonic history of sexuality." I have no idea if that's true. I would have to poll the lesbians I know. Regardless of sexuality I think all women/those who have some tie to womanhood feel the constant and ever present pressure to conform. Also, wait a damn second, trans women who are also butches exist. So there's that. "The real question, then, is what has happened to the fairies and queens?" Why are you trying to invent a gay male version of the "butch flight" conspiracy. "No doubt a great many would have either elected to transition or settled into a relatively stigma-free gender-typical homosexuality." i'm like. fucking dying inside. the assumption that all trans women are attracted to men. the assumption that you can just Be A Gay Man Stigma Free in anywhere but the most progress of places. the implication that transition is somehow easy????

Okay. and now we get to "Given the erotic and cultural value of masculinity among gay men, feminine gay men who do not desire transition have become something of a paradox. Stereotypically gay, yet rarely considered desirable within gay male culture (the slogan ‘‘no fats, no femmes, no Asians’’ epitomizes the ‘‘masc 4 masc’’ gay culture that is now hegemonic), feminine gay men have ‘‘become historical,’’ redolent of homosexualities of yore, yet deprived of even a single affirmative term to identify them, much less articulate a positive desire for them. 13 Tellingly, not a single ‘‘tribe’’ on the gay sex app Grindr names feminine gay men or those who might desire them; ‘‘trans,’’ by contrast, is a named tribe. Feminine men have become erotic nonentities, desired, more often than not, despite rather than for their femininity. They are fallouts of both the cis/trans and the homo/hetero binary: if, during the early twentieth century, any normal man might have desired them, now no heterosexual man is permitted to, and few gay men find themselves so moved." Where do I even fucking begin. Neon kitchen evangelion nightmares I'm just beginning to shit myself dot png. okay. firstly. men not wanting to fuck fat men or asian men is, respectively, fatphobic and racist. secondly. re: "no femmes." okay. do we think the same people saying "no femmes" also are trying to fuck The Transes. do we think the same men trying to have masc4masc sex are trying to fuck trans women. the idea that "trans" being a category on "the gay sex app," -- where I presume that "trans" is meant to imply "trans women" -- is somehow meaning that the "trans" are desirable in a positive way would be like assuming that just because certain racial categories are popular on adult websites, that somehow means that they are, like, being desired in a positive way. Do you think having sex with a man who is likely going to misgender you or treat you as a vehicle for his own self exploration is, like, a good time? Actually, what the hell do you think that these trans women are winning? Is it because you presume that they've transitioned, that their male partners will treat them with more respect than a feminine male partner? Is it just because you assume these women getting bombarded with dick pics, they must be rolling in the wealth of male attention and having a great time of it all? This is like. >assert that all men be bisexual at least a little lowkey >construct a fantasy where back in the day cisgender men were allowed to fuck whoever they wanted without being called gay because the word "heterosexual" wasn't invented yet >assert that the word "heterosexual" destroyed the cishet man's ability to fuck queer people and this somehow is a sign of society's regressive decline because it's progressive when men fuck whoever they want without consequence or something >assert that a second term - "cisgender" - has hit the feminine gay man world by storm >assert that trans women are stealing your potential masculine gay men because now everyone is expected to transition or stop being gnc these days? >source: senator he made it the fuck up.

I just...what is the end goal of this. Because it's not human rights. It's not respect. If you think that trans women are treated overall any better by their cis male partners than gay men are then all I have to say is "what the fuck are you talking about," - especially if cis male partner identifies as gay, which implies that he is ignoring his partner's whole ass identity, which is generally not good for people. I am not going to look up if "twinks" are a "tribe" on Grindr but you cannot convince me that twinks are out of fashion or that no one wants to fuck feminine men at all. You cannot convince me to blame trans people for the fact that cisgender men are picky assholes when it comes to who they want to fuck, and being picky does not exclude dehumanizing whoever they decide will feed their appetite. Wanting a heterosexual man to have sex with you or other gay men to have sex with you does not convey that you will be respected or appreciated as a human being. Sex is not an indicator for how much someone sees you as a human. The false past you romanticize spells out a terrible society in which cis men fuck whoever they want and nothing else changes - a society we pretty much already live in, with some obvious caveats; such as the persecution of gay men, except in your world, it would be like....cis men who are masc and who don't define themselves as straight/gay/bi but who just fuck around, and then cis women, and then....soup of third sexed people who are fuckable. Like truly what is the end fucking goal here. Is it literally just to get laid. It feels like we're out here creating a false past where masc gay dudes unilaterally fucked fem gay dudes and kadji amin wants to return to this past but like who is to say it even existed in the first place? Or that it's even a good idea to do that? And now we have to just...blame trans women for the fact that gay men are picky? I just. what the fuck. ugh. whatever. "cisgender" and "heterosexuality" did not ruin the dating pool. what the fuck is going onnnnn.

following this up with "enter nonbinary" as the next subsection heading is making me want to cry.

doomscrolling tiktok together and I turn to you and ask, "why doesn't your algorithm recommend any videos with Black people?"