If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Over the weekend, I did an interview about my forthcoming book The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI (a book about being a better AI critic), and the interviewer said she was surprised that I wasn't an AI booster, based on my demographics and work history:
I could see where she was coming from. I encountered computers in the mid-seventies, as a small child. My first computer was a CARDIAC, a working, Turing-complete, mechanical computer made entirely of cardboard, that I spent endless hours with:
Then I graduated to a teletype terminal and acoustic coupler connected to a minicomputer at the University of Toronto. My mom, a kindergarten teacher, used to smuggle home 1,000' rolls of paper towel from the kids' bathroom. I'd get 1,000' feet of computing up one side, then another 1,000' down the other side, then I'd carefully re-roll the paper towel so she could put it back in the bathroom for the kids to dry their hands on.
After that, I got an Apple ][+ in 1979, and shortly thereafter acquired a modem, and that was it: I was hooked for life. I became an amateur programmer, then a professional programmer. I hosted forums on dial-up BBSes where I distributed software and offered support to strangers who wanted to connect their computers to the internet. I got a job as a gopher developer, then a web developer, then a CIO-for-hire, helping wire up small businesses and connect them to the net. Eventually, I co-founded a free/open source software startup, before transitioning to 25 years as a digital rights activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And for most of that time, I was energetically writing science fiction, eventually becoming associated with a school sometimes called "post-cyberpunk":
The force that energized all this work was a dialectical one, the contradiction that powered cyberpunk literature itself. For all that cyberpunk was undeniably enamored with the coolness and combustibility of new technology, it was also terrified of how technology could be a force for oppression, surveillance and control. As William Gibson says, "cyberpunk was a warning, not a suggestion."
Gibson's more famous quote, of course, is "the street finds its own use for things." In Gibson's novels (and in my own life in technology) all the most interesting things happen when users of technology (often without formal training or credentials) find ways to adapt the technology they use to suit their needs:
This is why I remain an ardent fan of Hypercard, Scratch and other meta-tools that are designed to allow non-programmers to write software that exactly conforms to their desires. Whatever the apps produced by these tools lack in sophistication and efficiency is more than offset by the fact that they give everyday people the power to directly control the tools they rely upon.
If "epistemic humility" means anything, it means acknowledging that no amount of "requirements gathering" can capture the needs of people totally unlike yourself as faithfully as those users can capture their own needs. Giving people the tools to produce their own software is always going to make tools â vernacular, idiosyncratic, homespun â that are more suited to their own hands and minds than anything a technologist working on their behalf could make.
The ancient dictum of "nothing about us without us" â born in 16th century Poland and taken up by the modern disability rights movement â asserts the right of people to control their own living conditions, and also the unique capacity of people to understand their own needs. You know what's even better than being consulted on the design of the technology you use? Having direct control over that technology!
This is why I was so suspicious of the iPad. The iPad's much-lauded "ease of use" was entirely about how easy it was to use an iPad to consume technology. But the iPad remains the single most user-innovation-hostile technology in modern history, a device designed to make it impossible to produce technology without permission from a remorseless multinational corporation. This is cyberpunk as a demand, not a warning:
The technology I've championed all my life is technology that gives more control to its users. One of my immutable precepts is that people who are different from me know things I can't know, and the only way I can get the benefit of their unique knowledge and perspective is if they are free to make and share things that matter to them. As Dan Gillmor said, back when he was inventing the study of citizen journalism, "My readers know more than I do":
And while I am broadly very skeptical of AI, and deeply alarmed by the proliferation of "vibe coded" software in production environments, vibe coding for personal projects is a useful and exciting addition to the lineage of tools that let computer users decide how their computers will work. For people making personal projects, vibe coding extends the power of shell scripting, cron jobs, Applescript, and other desktop automation tools to a wider audience.
One of the journalists I spoke to last week about my book described how he had vibe coded an app that showed him an alert every time a plane flew over his house, giving the tail number and other details of the flight. This is information that I have no need for, no interest in, and that I'm therefore excited to learn about, because its very existence affirms that the world is full of people who are delightfully, irreducibly, amazingly different from me, and moreover, that their unique needs can be directly met using their imaginations and their personal computers.
I recently sat down with my colleague Naomi Novik, a brilliant author who also co-founded Archive of Our Own. Naomi demoed her followup to AO3 for me: Wreccer, a system to help you find small groups of people with taste similar to your own, in order to facilitate media recommendations within that group â a kind of personal, relationship-driven alternative to massive, centralized, monolithic algorithmic recommendation systems:
https://github.com/wreccer
Naomi told me that Wreccer was being built using the same design ethos that the original Twitter embraced. When Twitter launched, it was an API first, and the official Twitter front end was built on that API â but anyone could build their own front end for Twitter that worked in the way they wanted it to. Now, the word "anyone" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, because most people don't even know what an API is, and of the people who do, most of them were not capable of writing their own software front end for Twitter.
But Wreccer is being designed for the age of vibe coding, and the API will really allow anyone who uses the service to design their own interface to the system, one that elevates and centers the features they find useful and tucks away the ones they're not interested in. Your personal, custom front end could also bring in other data-sources â pulling in your Mastodon messages, for example, or even showing you an alert with the tail-number of any plane flying over your home.
This is the part of vibe coding that I'm quite excited about, but it's not the part the industry focuses on. Instead of hearing about how personal, homemade software utilities can be an end unto themselves, we hear about vibe coded projects as prototypes for commercial production code. We hear about clueless bosses vibe coding software products and services that run fine for one user on a siloed desktop computer, and then demanding to know why it takes 50 engineers a year to make the same thing work for millions of users on the public internet. We hear about people who vibe code and submit patches to free/open-source software projects with millions of users, overwhelming project maintainers with slop code that is riddled with security vulnerabilities.
Of course, there's an obvious reason why the industry wants to focus on the potential for vibe coded software to replace production code. The AI bubble has burned up $1.4t to date, while bringing in mere tens of billions of dollars per year, even as its unit economics grow steadily worse:
To keep the bubble inflated, AI hucksters must promise massive economic returns to the technology. They want investors to believe that vibe code is about to replace working programmers, who are skilled, high-waged, high-demand workers. Their pitch is that for every million dollars' worth of programmers that an AI salesman and a boss conspire to fire, half a million dollars will go to the AI company whose bots shit out that vibe code.
That's par for the course with the AI bubble, whose focus is entirely on how AI can centralize, control and homogenize our lives. Whereas early desktop publishing, web publishing and social media gave us a glorious higgledy-piggledy of chaotic, weird and transgressive hobbyist media and retina-searing designs, AI art and design are instantly recognizable at a thousand yards, and it all looks the same, boring, and washed:
AI companies have released open weight/open source models that can run on your own computer, but these are treated as side-shows and toys and demos. The real action, we're told, is in "frontier models," which is industry-speak for "a piece of software whose running costs exceed the GDP of most countries":
Perhaps this is why the dynamics of AI are so different from the early dynamics of the web. Early web users were workers, who demanded that their bosses allow them to use the web and so devolve more power to people doing their jobs. By contrast, today's most ardent AI boosters are bosses, who threaten workers who don't use AI enough in the course of their duties:
Where we do see idiosyncrasy emerging from AI usage, it's often terrible. AI can help you create a folie-a-un in which you and a chatbot team up to reinforce your delusions and drive you deeper into a world of dangerous mirage:
There's a (false) story that's told about people who championed the early internet: that we were blithely certain that technology could only be a force for good, and negligently disinterested in the possibility that technology could control, extract and harm. That's demonstrably untrue: recall cyberpunk's dualism of "the street finds its own use for things" and "cyberpunk is a warning, not a suggestion."
More true is to say that early internet champions were alive to the importance of the internet, and therefore both excited about the possibilities of the internet to deliver a world of connection, idiosyncrasy, love and solidarity; and about the danger of the internet as a dystopian system of surveillance and manipulation:
History isn't finished. Long after the AI bubble pops, there will be local models and people vibe coding homemade software that respond directly to their needs. The stuff we make on our own computers, for ourselves, is deplatformed from its inception. It's part of the life we can build in technology's "shadowy corners" that we used to just call "technology." The fact that this stuff is utterly unsuited to be production code makes it inherently unmonetizable. It's how the street finds its own use for things:
As a blind person, my ability to play mainstream video games has been historically limited by such factors as having a modder who cares enough about helping my community play the game to dedicate a decent chunk of their time to development of such a mod.
Recently, I found out a mod had been made for RimWorld to make it accessible, and was so taken with the game as demonstrated on the youtube channel I was watching that I bought it and installed the mod so I could play it for myself.
It wasn't until nearly a month into playing that I learned the mod had been made entirely with AI, and I felt like a traitor for even using it for a hot second.
But the thing is, I want to be able to play more games. I want accessibility mods to be easier to create/roll out. I've dreamed of such a future for years. And now it's here, and AI vibe-coding is enabling it.
The mod works. There are errors but those get fixed with another pass over the code. The mod does what it's supposed to and I can play the game.
I don't know if other accessibility mods that didn't previously use AI will/have done so. I dunno if the next mod I hear about will be made with AI or a small dedicated dev team. I just know I can play more games than I could before, and I'm not gonna avoid a game I want to play just because the mod enabling me to play it was vibe-coded.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
The reason why so many of y'all's feminism sucks is because you still believe deep down in your hearts that there are only two kinds of people in the world: precious, ethereal, fragile dollthings called "women", and violent, lustful, rage-fueled apes called "men". Until you throw that idea away, 3rd-grade-tier "girls rule boys drool, girls are princesses and boys are stinky :(" is as feminist as we'll ever get-- and I hope it's obvious that that's lightyears away from the bare minimum of where we need to be.
I don't know how I'm supposed to explain to ostensibly trans-friendly feminists that "women are beautiful soft things made of glass, men are obsessed with violence and sex" is exactly what the patriarchy wants you to believe. Patriarchy wants you to believe that being a woman and/or having a vagina (patriarchy generally believes those two things are synonymous) makes one shatter on impact with reality. It makes you easier to control if you are scared shitless of the other half of the population, and it makes you more compliant with your lot in life if you believe it is in the nature of the other half of the population to rape and kill rather than realise those were choices those individual rapists and murderers made. There is no way to make gender essentialism progressive and feminist, because it is one of patriarchy's tools of subjugation. Stop trying to make it progressive.
And I can scream all of that from the rooftops over and over again, and what I hear in reply is "Trans men really are men because no woman would ever decide to become an inherently evil repugnant rapist ape", and "You're so right. Trans women are women because they too are pretty delicate little objects I can fuck", and "You're non-binary? So are you fucktoy non-binary or sexpest non-binary?", and my patience runs ever thinner.
this is not to say you shouldn't make characters with strabismus- you should! i want to see people with my disabilities! but i think a little research can go a long way. i'd love to see it given more depth in writing than just being an indicator of intelligence (which it isn't and never has been!)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
like idk how to explain this any other way but do you know how frustrating it is to have a gender you can never 'pass' as because the concept of something not 'man' or 'woman' doesnt exist to 99% of people?
everyone no matter what i look like will try and 'figure out' if im a man or a woman and i just have to be okay with that forever. even when people GET MAD AT ME that they can't figure it out (actually has happened before). like. unless i specifically disclose my gender to every single person i meet my entire life, i will always be misgendered no matter what. because im not either of the 2 options that people want everyone to be.
and since i dont want to do that, im supposed to just be okay with being misgendered forever. nonbinary people at large are made into joke after joke because daring to be upset at the limited options that everyone else uses is apparently too entitled of a position.
RE: the post I just reblogged about how bullies will single out victims for having neurdivergent traits but will rarely if ever come right out and say "I bullied you because you're neurdivergent", they'll just say it's because you were too weird and eccentric (no matter how harmless that weirdness and eccentricity is)
I don't want to derail a post specifically about being neurdivergent, so I'm going to go ahead and make this its own post. But, I have been having a lot of thoughts lately on how the same thing can be said of being a survivor of abuse makes you vulnerable to more bullying and abuse.
I've lurked in subreddits for bullying victims to talk about their experiences, and there's almost always comments saying things to the victims like "bullies probably always sniff you out because you're quiet and withdrawn and act afraid of other people" "bullies sniff you out because when they raise their voice to you or say something mean you flinch and freeze up instead of standing up for yourself" "bullies sniff you out because they can tell from your body language that you have low self esteem and low self worth so they take that as you being an easy target"
Gee, I wonder what sort of life experience could make someone withdrawn, afraid of other people, flinching and freezing when someone is mean or raises their voice at them, and also lowers this person's self esteem and self worth đ¤đ¤đ¤
Just like in the last post I reblogged where they said it's unlikely for a bully to come right out and say "I picked this victim because they're autistic", instead they'd say "it's because this person is weird and eccentric", if you were to ask a bully who is targeting a survivor of domestic violence why they picked that target it's unlikely they'd come right out and say "I'm bullying them for being a victim of domestic violence", they would deny that much and probably don't even realize (or care) that their victim is a survivor of abuse. But that doesn't change the fact that they were drawn to this particular target because of traits the victim acquired as a result of enduring abuse.
And sure, especially with therapy you can rebuild your self esteem after abuse, and learn to control your trauma responses better so you're not walking around with a target on your back all day for bullies to come and get you. However, that can take years of healing, probably needing the help of a professional to get that far. Call me a crazy radical or whatever but if someone has already endured abuse they don't deserve to endure years more of bullying until they've healed enough, especially when bullying is likely to stunt or even stop the healing process altogether.
i think that's true, but in my experience "being a victim of (domestic violence)" is openly stigmatised amongst children. like there is not much dissimulation, in my experience.
being the victim of parental control was considered embarrassing, and lowered one's social standing considerably. one boy who was hated was scorned for having "his mother chose his clothes for him". my mother also decided daily on what i would wear as well as over my hygiene (when i was allowed to shower, to shave, etc). most people that age had certain liberties to chose their dress (within limits, as their parents also would disallow some things), over their hygiene, and so forth, and a child that had less control of this than them was socially lesser.
when i was in the middle grades, a teacher organised a special group activity on bullying with specifically my case in mind, and i remember a child explaining their dislike and rejection of me with: [their] parents are really weird and don't allow [them] to do anything! i also well remember arriving at school the day after a conflict with a semi-friend who greeted me loudly with "so did your mother give you a trashing yesterday!!!", again as declaration of my patheticness which was, of course, meant to embarrass me.
it's interesting to think on, how little class solidarity so to speak there is among children over the issue of parental control and violence. i suppose everybody that was at conditional liberty to chose their clothing, to decide on some of their activities, that wasn't beaten much at home, etc, must have, on some level, been aware that they were lucky to not have to endure this much, that, as children, had they been saddled with more uncool, more embarrassing parents, there would have been little they could've done about it. probably their parents were in many ways uncool, embarassing, restrictive and occasionally violent, but one can always punch down onto those that are controlled and abused worse.
i also think that the overlap between behaviours deemed "autistic" and reactions to abuse is considerable anyway. one personal example is that into my 20s, i would calm down, and it was the only way for me to go to sleep, by forcefully rocking my body back and forth and by banging my head rhythmically against my bed for as long as it took to fall asleep. obviously something pretty intensely bullyable. also to my knowledge usually diagnosed as sign of autism ("stimming"). however, now in my 30s, and having lived for many years without being entrapped and abused, (though not without violence or the threat of violence, as none of us do), i simply grew out of it. one supposedly does not grow out of autism, though, so i must assume i grew out of being stressed about being entrapped and abused.
Good addition because actually yes, being a survivor of abuse is still heavily stigmatized, and considered a personal failing on the part of the survivor. Nevermind that being a survivor of abuse often comes down to circumstances you have zero control over, such as what family you were born into.
Still, victim blamers like to feel a smug and unearned sense of accomplishment over not being a victim themselves, as if they did something right and victims must have done something wrong to warrant their abuse. Nevermind that again, it often comes down to circumstances you have no control over such as what family you're born into.
Or, even if you're abused as a teen or adult by a partner or someone else you let into your life, we've all hit low spots in our life where we're emotionally vulnerable, so it also often comes down to luck of the draw over who you're surrounded by when you've hit a low and you're in a vulnerable place.
Either way, falling victim to abuse is often completely out of your control, but that hasn't stopped victim blamers. Again, it's still often viewed as a personal failing to be on the receiving end of abuse (regardless of circumstances), so is it any wonder that people don't care that when they point out excuses for why bullies are drawn to a target that these are often signs of enduring abuse?
Actually I'm having more thoughts and feelings about how traits of surviving abuse are just so heavily hated and stigmatized by the general population.
If you are someone who freezes, fawns, or just in general has difficulty speaking up for yourself people will hate you for that, brand you a coward, say it makes you weak, and say that any abuse or bullying that happens to you is your fault for being too weak to do anything about it. (The catch 22 is that people also hate people who assert their boundaries and speak up for themselves, you really can't win!)
But again, freezing, fawning, flinching at mean/rude behavior instead of speaking back, these behaviors can become so heavily ingrained in you after years of abuse, and can be so, so hard to untrain yourself to even years after you've escaped the abuse.
That's because our brains and bodies are hardwired to do what it takes for us to survive any given situation. When you're trapped in an abusive situation, you probably did try fighting back and standing up for yourself at some point. Maybe dozens of times. Maybe even hundreds of times. And chances are every single time, or almost every single time, that you tried standing up for yourself and fighting back this just made the abuser dial up the abuse even more, so fighting back only put you in more danger. And at some point, in a pavlovian manner, a very primal part of your brain began to understand that fighting back and standing up for yourself was only putting you in more danger, endangering your safety, possibly even endangering your life. So your brain, which is evolved to keep you safe and more importantly alive, changed its wiring down to the very primal core to make you do what it would take to keep you safe during abuse, which often is freezing or fawning, but certainly not trying to fight back or stand up for yourself (after that only put you in more danger the first 10 or 50 or 100 times). Freezing and/or fawning is often the only reaction that will please an abuser who's actively lashing out at you, and get them to calm down and back off, or at least not hurt you more than they were already planning to.
So as a survival mechanism, these behaviors become very, very hardwired into you, because they were the only things keeping you safe, possibly even alive, for many years. That's why once you leave the abuse you can't just switch off these behaviors. The more severe the abuse, the more hardwired these are. That's why it can take years working with a therapist, preferably one who specializes in trauma recovery, to hopefully re-wire your brain a little bit. But not everyone has access to a therapist specializing in trauma recovery.
When I see someone who freezes, fawns, has trouble speaking up, who flinches and backs down when someone raises their voice, I don't see a coward. I see someone whose brain was re-wired to keep them safe and alive in a very horrible situation.
And yet, people are so quick to judge these behaviors as "weak" "cowardly" and "pathetic" because society hates abuse survivors so much, and surviving abuse is still so heavily stigmatized.
But if you want to make the world a little kinder for abuse survivors, don't be so quick to judge behaviors common in abuse survivors, like freezing, fawning, flinching at loud voices or mean words, struggling to speak up, etc. Instead of being so quick to judge them as weak or cowardly, or saying it means they deserve to be bullied and/or mistreated for their "weakness", maybe ask yourself why they are the way they are. Chances are they're that way because they've endured something more horrific than you could imagine, so the least you could do is show a little kindness and understanding, maybe even stand up for them.
I suspect there's a similar urge to distance oneself that you see in discussion of disabling injuries or poverty. These things could happen to you. There is no way to guarantee your safety and that fact makes people incredibly uneasy.
As a defense mechanism, they believe they aren't just lucky but somehow better than the people they see suffering. If people are poor because they're lazy and I'm not lazy, I don't have to fear poverty. If I've never been disabled or killed in a car crash, it's because I'm a good driver and therefore I can ignore the possibility that it could happen to me. Because I'm not like them, I won't suffer like them.
Not only does it justify cruelty by saying only the deserving suffer (and so they also deserve your cruelty and you don't have to feel bad) it creates an incentive to alienate and avoid anyone who's suffering. If you get close to them, you might start to like them. You might start to wonder if they really deserve it. You might learn they did nothing wrong, were just like you...and they still got unlucky.
That is rightfully terrifying. It's true and accepting it will not only give you more reason to be kind but also prepare you better for your own bad luck and make you a bit harder to manipulate. Knowing the risks won't save you but it will improve your odds.
But that's a future problem and facing the terror of an indifferent, unfair universe is a now problem, so it takes strength and knowledge (and luck) to fight the instinct to just hide.
About the rewiring of the brain, I think itâs also interesting how survivors of abuse learn to hate themselves for how their brain has learned to survive. Fighting and standing up for yourself is always portrayed as the good and brave thing to do. The heroes save the day by facing their fears and standing up to the villain rarely comes back to slap them in the face. Rarely do I see stories that deal with the possibility that fighting the villain might not work, and what would happen then.
This is mostly speaking from my experience, but when I was a child, my fear response used to be Fight. I would stand up to my father when he was screaming at me. I would tell him when his reasoning didnât make sense and when I thought he was being unjust. I would defend my mother when she and my father fought, because he screamed and she did not, so I thought she felt alone and vulnerable so I felt like it was my duty to protect her. I would defend myself when I was being bullied, even if that only resulted in more bullying. I remember myself being âbraveâ. But like was said before, fighting didnât help. It only made things worse. So I learned to Fawn. I learned to hide myself, and that instinct to hide got so bad that it was directly interfering with my ability to function in society. But the anger isnât gone. I still feel indignant when I believe a situation to be unjust, I just can no longer act on those feelings.
And this, for me at least, has caused a lot of self hatred. And when my teachers told me that it was my own fault that I was being bullied, I believed them. Only now, after I have moved away from my parents and have made some actual proper friends, have I begun to treat myself with some more sympathy. But even now, when I think of my childhood heroes or just characters I admire, I catch myself thinking that they would surely hate me for âbeing so weak and pathetic.â
I feel like this also connected to, or perhaps stems from, capitalist society and politics influencing culture. There is an inherent and concentrated effort to not only disrupt and destroy community, but also blaming societal ills on the individual, so nothing has to be changed. That, too, is the same kind of victim blaming- connecting the thread between disability, poverty, and other forms of marginalization further. Believing the people who are suffering deserved it makes those who aren't unsympathetic and prevents unity and attempts at widescale change. We know that, at least in the US, this has been an ongoing psyop for at least the last fifty years by a lot of the wealthy elite. And that, in turn, is a backlash to the civil rights movement... everything is connected, these issues are all affecting each other.
If someone else is being abused by their boss? They must've done something to deserve it. No need for unions to actually hold corporations accountable. Someone disabled in a workplace accident? Must've been their fault, they'd best not sue, and if anyone speaks up for them their livelihoods are potentially on the line. People are encouraged to compete with each other, and discouraged to cooperate and help each other. From the very beginning in school, from a young age, you are set against your peers in competition- not cooperation. Those who do well will get better opportunities, be able to apply to be accepted into colleges, ect. Students that suffer from abuse and bullying will obviously do worse than students who don't. People like me lost years if not over a decade of their lives to the abuse, and the bullies not only get off scott-free, they go on to become successful and are in-charge of workplaces like managers. US society has been structured to reward some of the worst among us for half a century, and it has really come home to roost this past decade.
We NEED to not blame the victims. Doing so only serves these corrupt forces trying to tear us apart, by getting us to tear apart ourselves for them.
So, bodyncoherence said something I'd like to mention, but they seem to have deleted their reblog so I'm going to put it at the end.
Stimming is not an Autism Only Behavior. Not only does it show up for ADHD, but also OCD and most Anxiety Disorders. Including PTSD something that survivors of abuse famously have a high rate of.
In fact, overstimulation is also something that shows up in both autism and PTSD (and schizophrenia). There is an uncomfortable overlap in PTSD and ASD symptoms, and I've even seen the theory that it because the official ASD symptoms aren't actually the base autistic neurotype, but the Traumatized version.
Anyway, if you notice yourself having autistic behaviors but aren't sure you yourself are autistic, it can be beneficial to Google other possibilities. In this case, "stimming other disorders." You may find a more fitting diagnosis.
like this sentence from the introduction alone is fucking crazy. âapproximately half of adults in the united states think that torture can be acceptable in counterterrorism.â what!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
whats real funny is i have had a post on here talking about how sexual violence against boys & men goes horribly underdiscussed get an actual MRA to yell at me because he didn't like that I attributed that to patriarchy and not Evil Feminist Bitches who control society.
honestly if you aren't getting called an MRA by radfems and a radical feminist by MRAs, are you even doing transfeminism
Because I was now a man, I could not speak about what it was like to be a woman. Because I had been a woman, I could never really speak about what it was like to be a man. Do the math: I could not speak. It was a double erasure, a double bind, in which every experience I had was false, and so nothing I said was credible. I could no longer derive authority from my experiences before transition, and shouldnât even cite them â I had never âreallyâ been a woman, so those things hadnât happened â but those experiences could always be weaponized against me to prove I wasnât âreallyâ the man I claimed to be.
They call it erasure, when this happens. I wasnât prepared for how literal the term was. Every day, I could feel myself disappear.
â Eraserhead: On writer's block and being a gender traitor by Jude Doyle
There are many good paragraphs but this stuck out the most:
"If âmanâ and âwomanâ are opposed and mutually exclusive categories, if men can only ever be predators and women can only ever be prey, then trans men canât exist. We are logically impossible under the terms of the current system. You either âtreat us like menâ by voiding out half our lives, or you write us back into womanhood by denying our male identities. I knew all that, at least in theory, but when I came out, I actually saw my life story disappearing into other peopleâs blind spots. I watched myself become unthinkable in real time."
Also these:
"This wasnât about accountability. This was people tactically forgetting my entire life,including incidents from my life they had personally witnessed or been involved in, so that they could shame me for transitioning. It was bad for me to be a man; if I was a man, I was a bad man, I was all the worst things men are. I was hulking, I was threatening, I was predatory, I was violent."
"I was treated as both genders, but only the most monstrous stereotype of each one."
Because that is exactly it. Anti-transmasculinity is being both erased and vilified, and then gaslit out of speaking about those experiences by the people who are erasing and vilifying you.
"The idea that I had always occupied a privileged position within patriarchy was, frankly, untrue; nor did it seem to me that a trans person was any less gender-marginalized than your average cis woman. What privilege I had was conditional, and these books were no guide. Men who wanted to âforge a positive masculinityâ (and everyone was very clear that I needed one of those) were encouraged to get in touch with their âfeminine sides.â Maybe that was healthy for cis guys, but I had been forced to do feminine things, and present in feminine ways, for the entirety of my young life. Whatever liberation I had achieved came from giving myself permission to stop."
As did the ending:
"When I write these days, I try to remind myself that whatever Iâm afraid of saying is already true, and denial will not change it. I remind myself that the wrong people benefit from my silence, and will use it to write a version of my life I canât recognize, or just write me out of the world. There is no established story or role for me; I belong to a category the world is still learning to imagine. I cannot account for the world as other people imagine it. I cannot give you every manâs story, every trans manâs story, every trans personâs story; I don't know them. What I do know is that every new story helps map the territory. All I can do for you, from where I'm standing, is tell you how things are."Â
#you love to see real transmasc activism without transandrophobia in the tags#see it's possible to talk about without using fake words or calling it misandry#instead it's a unique flavour of transphobia that has been snowballing into an anti-transmasc rhetoric
Unfortunately, this post was made by someone who does use the term transandrophobia (although its not my preferred term)! as does at least one of the additions above, and as do many people in the notes. if you agree with this post and think it is "real transmasc activism," i promise you there is PLENTY of transandrophobia/anti-transmasc theory that you would find really compelling. I actually only started using the term myself after finding a trans woman who was outspoken about supporting the word as a way to discuss anti-transmasculine oppression.
If you want to know more, my pinned is a FAQ on the subject. Even if you disagree with what i say here, I think you would find it interesting. I include many links for further introductory reading, including this post and this post where I go over some common criticisms of transandrophobia and my responses to them. I've also recently been posting some quotes from Emi Koyama's Transfeminist Manifesto, which aren't directly related to the term itself but I think are really important for understanding what transfeminism needs to look like, and the issues with how people today (especially on tumblr) imagine it should look like.
The idea of using misandry in a feminist manner is not a brand new one, either. Sophie Lewis, a great feminist writer, used it in her essay on heterofatalism, Collective Turn Off:
But today, in popular feminism, the unfruitfulness of the âandrocideâ and âexodusâ positions has given way not to a revival of the communist dream of sexual liberation but to a widespread stance of misandry-lite characterised by martyred resignation to the dismal quality of heterosex [...] Note, while a majority of heterofatalist misandrists online today seem to think they are trans-affirming, their position not only requires erasing trans men altogether, but also all trace of trans womenâs lived experiences as men, regardless of those womenâs own self-understanding. Indeed, misandry, as I see it, can never reliably be prevented from collapsing into transphobia.
She also references this article by Sophia Giovannitti, who also uses misandry in a feminist sense:
The thing is, the popular misandrist left discourse, perpetuated by straight women, has almost nothing to do with sexuality, but everything to do with gender. Like political lesbianism, this Political Heterosexuality is not concerned with actual, felt sexual orientation or relationshipsâitâs concerned with the reifying of binary categories at the expense of a nuanced analysis of gender that accounts for race, class, and transition.
Additionally, it has been used by Black feminists, such as F.D Signifier. He's used in multiple places but here's an example:
As much grief and pain as many men can present within and outside of community, I understand we still also need to resist the urge to be "ironically homophobic or misandrious" as soon as it's time to take issue with a man within or outside of community. This of course does not give boys and men carte blanche to act like assholes, or center themselves in situations where it's not necessary. It just means that we all need to be more proactive and gracious to each other and focus on the whole of the problem. as much as one could muster at least
The term "misandry" is not forever spoiled by use by MRAs; feminists can and do use the term to add further nuance to their feminist theory and activism, especially when it comes to discussing marginalized men whose manhood influences their marginalization in important ways.
None of this requires ignoring misogyny or positioning misandry as simple "the boy version of misogyny" that functions in exactly the same way. The term can be quite useful in describing certain trends in attitudes and behaviors, and can be particularly important in feminist self-critique. bell hooks, while I don't believe she ever used that specific term, wrote about the dangers of anti-male attitudes in feminism to feminism at various points (see Feminism Is For Everybody and The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love). Transandrophobia / anti-transmasculinity theory has always been in conversation with the works of Black feminists and feminist theorists who pushed for greater inter-gender and inter-movement solidarity. It is important that we talk about this issue in feminist, queer, and trans spaces, and there's really no reason we need to let this term belong to misogynistic MRAs.
And the thing is, I know very well that there will never be a perfect term. Because with transandrophobia, no term has ever been "good enough" to avoid anti-transmasculine backlash. The resistance to discussing anti-transmasculinity, and anti-masculinity in general in feminist and queer spaces, will never be solved by finding a Morally Pure Word to discuss it with, because people simply do not want to discuss it.
This is why participating in the backlash to transandrophobia will always be harmful, even if you do want to see more discussions of anti-transmasculinity. The criticisms of the term are by and large not done in good faith, and even those that are are frequently clearly undereducated in what the term actually means. The backlash against transandrophobia has always been apart of that anti-transmasculine "snowballing" you described. This is not to say people have never had valid fears about the term, but it has only gotten to such a point because anti-transmasculinity is something we all internalize and it has been allowed to go largely unchecked in queer and trans spaces for years.
If you want to see more people discussing the kind of things talked about in the posts above, you need to make your peace with the term transandrophobia, because it is the people who use that term who have been the ones most outspoken about the need to talk about these issues before anyone gives us permission or finds the Perfect Word that no one will get mad at us for using. We need to move beyond the linguistic squabbling and take seriously the issues actually being discussed: pay gaps, interpersonal violence, sexual assault, suicide, reproductive rights, misogynistic legal structures, etc.
Contributing to the backlash against transandrophobia fundamentally means contributing to the movement of people who will silence this discussion no matter how perfectly it is worded or how serious its topics are. You don't have to personally like the term transandrophobia, but without it, you would not even be seeing this post that you yourself found impactful, and the term has never, ever been as much of a problem for our community as the reactionary, radical feminist backlash to it has been.
And this backlash has not spared anyone; I have seen multiple trans women talk about being harassed, having people insist they aren't real trans women, that they are lying men, that they should kill themselves, purely for supporting the use of this word. There is so much misinformation out there on transandrophobia and I really do hope you take some time to look into this posts I linked and at least consider them seriously.
Also, and this is more of a petty thing, but calling transandrophobia a "fake word" means nothing. "Cisgender" is no less of a "fake" word. All words are made up.
It was in response to this climate [feminist hostility to trans women] I wrote the piece âThe Transfeminist Manifesto,â which was later published in the anthology Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st Century edited by Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier. The manifesto addressed various feminist concerns, such as reproductive choice and health and violence against women, and discussed how transsexual women share many of the concerns of other women. I wanted to write a feminist theory that counter the argument that transsexual women were so different from all other women that there is no place for transsexual women within feminism (or that feminism has no use for transsexual women). I wanted to provide easy-to-repeat arguments that pro-trans feminists can use to confront blatant bigotry and falsehoods against transsexual women. And to these ends, I think âManifestoâ was successful.
But there was something unsettling about the âManifesto.â In an effort to forge an alliance between transsexual and non-transsexual women, the piece neglected the struggles of transsexual men and other transgender or genderqueer people who do not identify as âwomenâ unless it was convenient to include them. The piece was also weak on intersectional analysisâthat is, how anti-trans sentiments and oppressions compound and complicate oppressions other than sexism, including and especially racism and classism. It borrowed from the work of women of color when it was usefulâfor example, to point out that transsexual womenâs unique experiences should not be the basis for their exclusion because to do so would presuppose a singular universal female experience, which is obviously falseâwithout contributing any insights as to how the inclusion of trans sensibility helps to fight racism and other oppressions.
The fact is, I had only been living in my new home town for three months or so when I wrote this piece, and I was not fully in touch with my own discomfort with the white feminism that filled nine out of ten weeks of the Introduction to Womenâs Studies, nor did I feel confident enough to challenge the view that feminism is simply about advocating for women and fighting sexismâand nothing more. In short, what I had written was a version of white feminism that was modified just enough to include transsexual women. At the time, I felt that it was the only safe way to write a feminist theory that advanced transsexual womenâs place within feminism. I spent next couple of years meeting more people with a common commitment for justice for all, slowly building the self-confidence it takes to âtransform silence into language and action,â as Audre famously stated.
from Racist Feminism at the National Womenâs Studies Association (2008), attached to the The Transfeminist Manifesto by Emi Koyama.
what's so interesting about this to me is how this is exactly what i've seen people saying about the backlash to the discussion of transandrophobia & transunity.
like people would tear someone apart for saying it but its right there. Emi's Manifesto is far better, even without the initial Postscript, at tackling transfeminism and the question of male privilege and gender essentialism than most "transfeminists" on here and she still thought she didn't do enough in 2001 when it was published (& i agree).
and then seven years later she felt that what she had written was "a version of white feminism modified just enough to include trans women." & that's exactly what so much "transfeminism" right now looks and acts exactly like!!!!!!!!!! its what we have literally been saying
& then the fact that Emi reflected on how much of that was born out of her own lack of self-confidence in feminist spaces, dominated by cis white women, and her fear that anything too transgressive would be seen as opening the doors of feminism to MRAs and she would be blamed for cheapening the work.
earlier in this essay she talked about her experience with a Women's Studies course that unfortunately very much mirrors my own
It was during my second year of college I was first introduced to the writings of Audre in a Womenâs Studies course. Throughout the academic term, students read several articles each week, discussed them in the class, and wrote journal entries that reflect on the weekâs readings. Week after week, most of the assigned materials were those written by white, middle-class, straight (or sometimes âpolitical lesbianâ) women, and I was having difficulty relating to much of what was being discussed. I kept writing in my journal how I didnât relate to the reading, but I did not realize it had anything to do with the selection of the materials. I felt bad about being so ânegativeâ about feminism and feminists.
& i think that for a lot of trans people, particularly trans men&mascs and nonbinary people, this is a very common experience. being unable to relate to feminist courses and discussions which never engage with any of your experiences, and then feeling bad and/or being made to feel bad for being so "negative" about feminism.
idk gang its just wild how the Manifesto and the additions Emi made to it as a historical document still reflect so much of the "discourse" we are seeing right now. i think a lot of folks out there could benefit a lot from reading Emi's work and her bring up how her own experience feeling othered and shut out from "good feminist theory" directly led to her neglecting trans men and nonbinary/genderqueer people "unless it was convenient" out of fear that including those groups would be too alienating to cis women. so much of online "transfeminism" is just thinly veiled attempts to get white cis women's approval.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
There is a very specific kind of sadness in realizing your parents loved you, and still did not always know how to meet your emotional needs.
Because it is confusing. It would almost feel easier if there was no love there at all. But sometimes there was love. In the way they tried to protect you. In the sacrifices they made. In the ways they worried about you, cared for you, wanted a good life for you.
And at the same time, there were still things missing.
Maybe comfort did not come in the way you needed it to. Maybe your feelings were not always understood, or noticed, or handled gently. Maybe you learned to keep certain parts of yourself quiet because it felt easier than trying to explain them.
That kind of hurt is difficult because it does not always come from cruelty. Sometimes it comes from people who loved you deeply, but did not know how to emotionally connect in the ways you needed. People carrying their own wounds, limitations, fears, or ways of surviving.
And you are allowed to acknowledge both truths at once.
You are allowed to recognize their love and still grieve what you needed but did not receive. Those things do not cancel each other out.
Forgiveness, for a lot of people, is not pretending nothing hurt you. It is slowly accepting that someone can love you and still fall short of understanding you completely.
That does not make your pain dramatic. It does not make them monsters either. Sometimes it just means everyone was trying with the emotional tools they had, and some of those tools were not enough.
And I think many people quietly carry guilt for still feeling hurt by parents they know tried their best. But being loved imperfectly can still leave wounds. It makes sense that it affected you.
At the same time, you do not have to stay trapped only in anger forever either. Sometimes healing looks like understanding that your parents were human before they were parents. People shaped by their own experiences, their own upbringing, their own emotional gaps.
That understanding does not erase your feelings. It just softens the sharp edges around them a little.
You deserved emotional safety. You deserved gentleness. You deserved to feel understood, comforted, and emotionally close to the people raising you.
And if they could not fully give that to you, it is okay to mourn it.
But I hope you also know this: the love you needed is still something you can experience in your life. Through other people. Through chosen family. Through the way you learn to treat yourself now.
The story does not end at what you did or did not receive growing up.
You are still allowed softness after all of it đ¤
I've known a number of non binary people in my life and I think single biggest conclusion I can draw from that is that non binary people are not the same. Like if Men fit in box A and women fit in box B, people really, really want nonbinary people to fit in a theoretical box C, and it just doesn't work like that. They are outside the boxes. They defy any simple categorization because they are not a third way of being, but every other possible way of being.
Being supportive of binary people is relatively simple, they have decided to sort themselves into one of the boxes that we have lots of experience interacting with. Being supportive of nonbinary people can be comparatively tricky, because you have to resist the urge to create box C and drop them all there. That's how we end up with various prejudices like "woman lite". Humans really, really like to categorize things. It helps us think. Unfortunately, sometimes it helps us think wrong.
If you have a non binary person in your life, I think it is important to take the extra effort to learn about them specifically.
Hello Yes This Is Dog @schafpudel - Tumblr Blog | Tumlook