be Gay do Witchcraft

You should let your aro friends know you love them.

You should let your polyamorous friends know you love them.

You should let your aplatonic friends (or aquaintances/family) know you love them.

You should let your afamilial friends know you love them.

You should let your bi friends know you love them.

You should let your nonbinary friends know you love them.

You should let your mspec/conflicting label friends know you love them.

You should let your xenogender friends know you love them.

You should let your neo/xenopronoun using friends know you love them.

You should let your trans friends know you love them.

If you’re reading this @nickelodeon, not only do we want season 3 of Rise, we also want more seasons and more movies. Rise is such an underrated GEM!

Anyone can participate and have fun! Go crazy with the prompts! Write! Draw! Make silly Tik-Tok videos! The possibilities are ENDLESS!

We gotta keep spreading the word and let @nickelodeon know that Rise will NEVER die!

Now comes with a week version:

When the majority of violence and sexual assaults committed against trans people is directed at trans women, that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny.

I think it is important to understand that for many trans women, Whipping Girl is formative. It is hard to overstate how important of a work it is to how trans femme people as a whole understand and view the world. With that in mind.

That quote is predicated on a false assumption. The best current data is that violence is directed across trans gender identities fairly equally. That is, trans men and non binary people suffer about as much violence as trans women. However, up until recently almost all studies of violence against trans people have been focused on trans women. Trans men and nonbinary people have been critically under represented and violence against them critically unreported. And yet many trans women continue to assume that trans women are the most targeted gender identity, largely because of an over reliance on a twenty year old manifesto that made a very strong claim based on bad data (which was the best data available at the time).

This is not a Julia Serano hit piece. I think Whipping Girl is fine. But I also think that Whipping Girl is not perfect. There are ideas and statements I personally disagree with. There are ideas and statements in there that are objectively wrong, like the above quote. And there is a least one statement I simply find indefensible.

While trans people on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum face discrimination for breaking gender norms (i.e., oppositional sexism), their expressions of maleness or masculinity themselves are not targeted for ridicule—to do so would require one to question masculinity itself.

This statement does not line up with what I have observed. I have observed trans men's masculinity being ridiculed, though not in the same way as trans women's femininity is ridiculed. She is wrong. I think this is an ignorant statement made by a trans woman motivated to overlook discrimination because she was pushing a particular narrative and therefore failed to recognize discrimination as it is experienced by another group, assuming that because it is not like the discrimination she experiences it does not exist. I believe this statement is indefensible. It was ignorant then, it is ignorant now.

Again, this is not a hit piece. I don't think she is a bad person, I don't think we need to throw out all of Whipping Girl. Lots of people make mistakes like this, it is an occupational hazard of making these kind of strong theories and statements.

But how many trans women take this statement as gospel and build their understanding of trans masculinity around Julia Serano's dismissive, factually incorrect, and at times even ignorant statements?

And this is Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. One of the most respected trans feminine texts there is. If we should be able to trust any text, it is Whipping Girl.

And that's the point. It is dangerous to view these sorts of texts as objective sources of information. And it's not just trans women and whipping girl, I am just most familiar with texts relating to trans women because I am one.

The queer community has a problem where we view authority figures in the movement as sources of objectively correct information. And when you do this eventually some authority figure you respect is going to say something that's ignorant and wrong and you will adopt that incorrect idea.

So the hrc bases a lot of their claims on identified homicide numbers. Which, of course, introduces massive selective bias. Using a pool of 372 identified trans victims of homicide, the hrc claims that 83% of trans victims of homicide were women.

The problem being that identified victims are not the same as all victims. Especially when you are comparing a known highly visible demographic to demographics known for low visibility.

The discrepancy in those claims is subtle to those who are not trained in data analysis, but it is such a basic and major error as to call into question the ability of the HRC to do effective data analysis at all. It's classic survivorship bias, I'm sure you've seen the story of the WW2 planes with bullet holes, it's that sort of thing.

And it is true that all sources agree that trans women (especially black trans women) are far more often identified. We have more names of murdered trans women than other demographics. You might be forgiven thinking this means trans women suffer the most violence.

But competent data analysis paints a different picture.

Lets look at "Global Burden of Violence Against Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".

The first thing you will notice is that this source spends a huge amount of time going into exact methodology, what data was used, the source, what data was not used and why, and how and why it was analyzed in the way it was. This is what competent data analysis looks like. Lets pull some critical quotes from the source:

"Disproportionate violence burdens are experienced by transgender and gender-diverse people who are multiply marginalized.13 For example, transphobia, racism, and classism intersect to compound violence exposure for transgender women of color.14,15 According to the Trans Murder Monitoring project, 94% of the 321 identified transgender and gender-diverse people who were murdered in 2023 were transgender women or transgender feminine people, and the majority were Black, women of color, and engaged in sex work.16 Such disparities suggest the importance of considering intersecting identities in violence research and intervention strategies.13"

You will notice they acknowledge the data on identified victims is almost entirely trans women. What they do not do is suggest that this means trans women are the primary victims of anti trans violence, instead drawing the conclusion that intersecting identities are a key factor. This is important because of the results of the actual data of properly conducted data gathering. Here is their conclusion about violence across trans gender identities: "Our meta-analyses did not show significantly different levels of violence globally among transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary adults."

"While we would have included homicide, we identified no studies that reported its prevalence." The first part is pretty plain. There is not a statistically significant difference in violence levels between trans identities, according to the data that was collected in a scientific manner.

However, homicide data has been completely neglected to be collected in a scientific manner (likely due to the difficulty of doing so). Instead reports are anecdotal - that is, we identify trans homicide victims after the fact, which means it is entirely based on demographic visibility. The source does suggest that it seems likely that black trans women in particular are disproportional victims of homicide, but no real conclusion can be drawn without further studies.

Given that general violence against trans people seems fairly flat across identity, and that intersectional factors seem to play a critical part in violence against trans people, I would suggest that anecdotally gathered evidence is the source of the discrepancy. Between a demographic known for hyper visibility (trans women), and demographics known for being practically invisible (other trans identities), it draws a very obvious picture of why the anecdotal evidence looks the way it does.

As a side note and purely my own opinion, I think there is a tendency for white trans women to claim the violence experienced by trans women of color, especially black trans women, and report it as general violence against trans women. But the data suggests that race (and class, which are often intertwined) play such a massive role in violence against trans women that I feel it is honestly kind of racist how the trans women community so often glosses over it, if it is even discussed at all. The simple fact is that a white trans woman like myself is much, much less likely to experience violence than a black trans woman, and that is a key part of the discussion.

Getting back to data, there is one more important piece I want to highlight. Specifically, how data has been gathered, and on who.

"Of the 94 studies, nearly all (90 studies [96%]) included transgender women, whereas 49% (46 studies) included transgender men, and 37% (35 studies) included nonbinary adults"

This is a massive discrepancy in visibility. It seems almost laughable that a study would include trans women specifically but not bother with trans men, a staggering display of systematic bias against trans men, and yet it appears that half of available studies that passed the minimum bar of quality to be included in the meta analysis did just that. And nonbinary people have it even worse. It is no wonder that violence against trans demographics other than trans women is less well understood and under reported in anecdotal analysis. Even the people actively looking for violence against trans people are heavily biasing their studies towards discovering violence against trans women.

I could go on for a long, long time breaking down this one meta analysis, but I think you get the point, and in particular how important proper data analysis is. The simple fact of the matter is many "reputable" sources are clearly not conducting proper data analysis when breaking down anti trans violence by demographic and making wildly incorrect claims because of it.

I have one more source I will be brief with. "Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018". The critical quote for our purpose:

"Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1000 persons, respectively) than did cisgender women (23.7 per 1000 persons; OR = 3.88; 90% CI = 0, 8.55) and cisgender men (19.8 per 1000 persons; OR = 5.98, 90% CI = 2.09, 9.87), but there were no differences between transgender men and women (Δ = 21.4; SE = 68.7; P = .76)."

You will note that the raw data shows higher violence against trans men, but with proper data analysis it is revealed to not be statistically significant. This is something you have to be careful of, there are tools experts use for data analysis that reveal that obvious conclusions from raw numbers are not always correct.

There are more sources out there, but I am not going to bother tracking them down. It was not hard to find these sources, these two major sources I found through simple internet searches on the first page (duck duck go, in my case). I don't know why you had problems, for me it was as simple as searching for something like "trans violence by gender identity" and looking for actual studies that talk about methodology.

This data on sexual assault against indigenous trans men and Gender-Diverse people assigned female is staggering, and it deserves to be taken seriously. This message is too important to hide behind unclear language!

"iirc its 74% for enben assigned female"- is not legible

you've done: Non-binary -> NB -> Enby -> Enben/Enbian

I realise you've been searching for a collective noun for the entire demographic "Non-binary"; but using the extremely derivative, constructed 'word' "enben", does NOT communicate any meaning. Additionally, it's not representative of a group of gender-diverse people: it represents the ABSENCE of a thing. Also, "Non-binary" reinforces that everyone outside of Man/Woman is a 'third gender'.*

You're taking a bureaucratic placeholder and trying to make it identity.

"Non-binary" exists in government forms because officials need a catch-all category. It's administrative language; the kind designed to be broad enough to contain multitudes without saying anything specific about any of them. And that's fine for a checkbox. It's genuinely useful for data collection at an institutional level. It can never be about individual identity.

It's extremely important for the protection of Queer Community that we do not allow bureaucratic language to define us!

There are already robust, specific terms for people whose gender doesn't fit the binary. We have labels like Genderqueer, Genderfluid, Agender; and many more with real Gender-Varient identifiers, terms that describe something affirmed rather than something rejected.

Promoting "Enby/ENBEN/Enbian" as a unifying community identifier flattens Gender-Varient distinctions; replaces specificity with a cutesy abbreviation from a government form. And then frames the inevitable confusion and dismissal of that vague term as evidence that Gender-Diverse people aren't taken seriously. When actually, we're not being taken seriously because we're asking to be called something that sounds like a pet name.

If we want to build solidarity, and if we want to be taken seriously in workplaces and by older generations and by people across cultures, we need to stop organizing around what we're rejecting and start being specific about what we actually are.

auressea's comments. Just wow. I don't disagree with the fact that non-binary is not just a third gender, and that other gender labels are important and should get attention, and that people who exist outside the gender binary dont always use enby or enben. But lemme talk about auressea's assumptions here.

I am non-binary. I am proud and confident in my identity. My identity is not just a word on government forms, and it is not necessarily the absence of anything. Non-binary is a real, valid identity.

Now i also want to talk about your misuse of our (enby/enben's) language. For one, calling enby/enben a "pet name" is really exorsexist. You don't get decide what we call ourselves. And two, i noticed you said (enby/enben/enbian). Which is incorrect. Enbian does not refer to a non-binary person, rather the attraction between two or more non-binary people (parrallel to sapphic and achillean).

Back to your insistence that non-binary is a "bureaucratic placeholder". Thats a very damaging thing to suggest, and you talk about gender diverse people not being taken seriously, but then you mock and belittle Non-binary people's (who are included in that group of gender diverse) language and tell us our identities are not real. Non-binary can in fact be about individual identity. And it happens to be the term that fits me the best, and i've looked. Its also not always centred on rejection of something. and even if it is? so what! Agender is about a lack or absence of gender, but you aren't upset about Agender people. nor about Asexual, Aromantic, Aplatonic, or a myriad of other things defined by a lack of something. So why is it a problem when its us.

My identity is not a trend, its not government lingo, its not a box we are being forced into, and its not something we need to reject.

I just do like a pose where it looks like I'm about to choke my tablet

like people's art on this app makes me feel like I need to step up my game

it's just so GORGEOUS

- A job

- Good relationship with father

- Neurotypical brain

- Ability to top

because they were told that if all four of them worked together, they could be powerful, all they needed to do was just convince this turtle that's buying groceries for a rat in the sewers.

Radexclus

🥦radexclus believes that it is OKAY to be exclusionary. things are okay to push away out of your communities when too woke or too far~🌈

Rad Exclusionary is anti:

Radnormal

Radinclus

Radqueer

Therians

Fictionkins

Xenogenders

Polyamory

TransID

Microlabels

"Silly cars >_<" ppl.

Cornballs

Unfunny humor

TOO woke

Paraphiles/preds (even recovering ones)

Objectums

Radexcus is pro:

Unlabeled

Gay, lesbian, trans, bisexual, nonbinary. That's it. There shouldn't be anymore labels

Normal queer ppl

Furry

Og fictionkin (relating to characters)

There are only 3 genders

Normal relationships

Normal trans ppl

Normal labels and no labels

Normal people

Actual funny humor

Normal woke

Normal attractions like yumeship

Why does it matter for half of these???? why are xenogenders bad? who are they harming? what about therians? or polyamorous people? or objectums? or microlabels or anyone who is not just gay, lesbian, trans, or nonbinary? who are they harming? NO ONE. also having to put "normal" in font of half of their "pro" list is crazy, like you really just dont like people who are weird (or dare i say... queer)

"actual funny humour" "unfunny humour" so we are policing humour now?

I was orginally offended but now im laughing. this is too crazy. i mean "normal woke" do you know what woke means???

I am a bi-lesbain (omni as well) non-binary girl (bigender - female and agender/nonbinary) who is oriented aroace and polyamorous. I use neopronouns, and support xenogenders and therians. and genuinely this just looks like someone who's trying to appeal to the queerphobes by excluding people they find "abnormal".

i have never seen a valid arguement for microlabels, xenogenders, polyamory, therians, or objectums, etc. harming the lgbtqia+ community. The only "problem" i see is people fighting within the community and targeting these people, which just weakens us and helps the queerphobes. dividing the community and excluding non-harmful identities is actually harming all of us in the long run.

(Plus some additional nonbinary/gay man ramblings)

Okay so, this is a topic that has been around for a couple years now, and I want to throw in my opinion. This was basically just sparked by a comment I just saw, and one that I left in response. A lot of this is taken directly from my comment, with some slight changes.

Long post below the cut!

I am a SPETE and present very feminine so i have actaully never been asked for pronouns outside of a specific lgbtq gathering this one time where we were almost all trans, but anyway, thus most people never use they/them for me, almost exclusively she/her, which is fine, im okay with she/her, but when those are the only pronouns people use it feels... bad. like part of my identity is being ignored. and i have pronoun pins, but wearing them can be very anxiety provoking when im the only person whos wearing one, especially in the small conservative christian town i live in.