Incredibly proud of my average penis

Sorry…but…um…WHAT ABOUT HER NOT BEING FEMININE MAKES HER LESS “HUMANIZING”??? WHAT???????

that being said. GLP-1s are being pushed because society is fundamentally fatphobic and causes the deaths of fat people (and people of other sizes chasing thinness) and there are people who are disgustingly rich off promoting fatphobia. the rise of skinny obsessiveness can be DIRECTLY tied with authoritarianism and fascism. & like, i think people should be allowed to do heroin if they want but that doesn't mean i need to give a lick of respect to Purdue Pharma or its sales reps and doctors who lied about the addictiveness of opiates to make bank off of people with chronic pain.

& wouldn't you know it, the company behind the ads that pissed me off are mentioned! and so is weight watchers!

There are currently two published instruments purporting to capture food noise. The Food Noise Questionnaire (FNQ; Diktas et al., 2025), is available for non-commercial purposes under a creative commons license and was developed in partnership with and deployed by the weight loss company WW International. The other is the proprietary Ro Allison Indiana Dhurandhar Food Noise (RAID-FN) Inventory (Dhurandhar et al., 2025, 2026) for which any use must be requested through the US telehealth company Ro. In late 2025, Ro began marketing the RAID-FN to consumers as a means for them to assess if they could benefit from pharmacological quieting of “food noise” to meet their medical or cosmetic weight loss goals. The RAID-FN has also been positioned as a tool for tracking patient progress and for licensing to pharmaceutical companies conducting clinical trials (Chen, 2025)

So its very clear that the weight loss industry is interested in this term. Ro (the company behind the Trisha Paytas ads) literally developed their own special "food noise" screening tool you have to get permission to use, and links "food noise" to not only medical need but cosmetic weight loss.

the article goes on to critique the FNQ and RAID-FN for being very similar to pre-existing questionnaires on food preoccupation or food addiction, to the point that it is unclear if these are even helpful or add anything. this paper talks about how extremely little is actually known about what causes food noise, or even if "food noise" is actually a newly-described phenomenon, although they do not dismiss that people are using "food noise" to describe a real condition they experience that warrants further study and care:

Given the current dearth of relevant basic research – including an absence of epidemiological studies – several steps are first required if food noise is to advance as a distinct and clinically relevant construct (albeit likely intimately associated with other previously described constructs such as food cue reactivity, food preoccupation, food-related intrusive thoughts, food cravings, external eating, and possibly even food addiction). [...] Despite the distinction in the hypotheses underlying the definitions of Diktas et al. and Dhurandhar et al. (i.e., that food noise arises spontaneously, regardless of internal or external food cues) when compared to Hayashi and colleagues’ earlier definition, all three definitions arguably share fundamental aspects. This includes the unwanted and involuntary nature of food noise (food-related intrusive thoughts) and the potential negative impact on health and well-being, which align with reports of lived experiences in online testimonies around food noise described above. This seems a sensible starting point for exploring all these inter-related issues as evidence can be gathered to identify if a distinct construct is warranted and provides additional utility [...] An instrument designed to capture an under-researched phenomenon like food noise should ideally demonstrate utility beyond already validated measures. Otherwise, it would be preferable to use an existing instrument or subscale (e.g., the food preoccupation with negative emotional valence subscale of Tapper and Pothos' Food Preoccupation Questionnaire) to standardize research methods and ensure comparability of findings (Mokkink et al., 2016). The FNQ, for example, exhibits a strong correlation with the Preoccupation with Food subscale of the Food Cravings Questionnaire–Trait (FCQ-T; r = .87; Diktas et al., 2025). Similarly, the RAID-FN questionnaire shows strong correlations with the overall score of the FCQ-T (r = .79; note that the preoccupation subscale was not analyzed separately) and a moderate correlation with a separate food-cue responsivity scale (r = .68; Dhurandhar et al., 2026). Such high correlations should not be interpreted as indicating agreement between instruments, rather they suggest substantial conceptual overlap, raising questions about whether the new tools provide unique information. This warrants future research using approaches such as calculating the intraclass correlation (ICC) between scores from the FNQ or the RAID-FN and existing measures of food preoccupation. Despite the fact that the RAID-FN's three-factor structure (preoccupation, persistence, and dysphoria) likely offers greater nuance than the single-factor FNQ, the methods employed in its development (as well as those for the FNQ) also raise questions about their reliance on informal observation of anecdotal data from media and expert opinions as theoretical bases for their understanding of the construct of food noise.

again. BOTH of these screening tools were made by weight loss companies, and you are not allowed to use the RAID-FN unless you get permission from Ro, and there is no evidence that they provide any information that is not already provided by pre-existing screening tools on similar food/hunger-related issues. and Ro specifically markets RAID-FN to consumers, including those interested in cosmetic weight loss. hmmmmm i wonder if there are, perhaps, some conflicts of interest at play here!

the section that really hits on the concerns i express above is "Food noise as pathology":

If we consider food noise as a distinct construct, then we also require better data and theorization to determine when food noise deviates from “normal.” That is, when do thoughts about food become noise? Diktas et al. 's (2025) FNQ definitionally rests on the requirement that food noise leads to disruptions that “make healthy behaviors difficult.” Dhurandhar et al.’s (2025) RAID-FN is based on unwanted thoughts that cause “harm.” Yet the field lacks evidence-based criteria for distinguishing “normal” from harmful levels of food-related thought, a necessary and ethical basis for developing instruments applied to pharmacological recommendations and patient tracking. In medicine, public health, and nutrition alike, definitions of health, weight, and “normal” have become so conflated with each other and with weight-related stigma that it is imperative to scrutinize all these definitions (Brewis & Wutich, 2019). In this context, it is easy to understand why “more” thoughts about food become readily assumed to be pathological, and labelled “food noise”, especially in the absence of empirical demonstration. It could be (following scholars such as Barsky & Borus, 1995; Dumit, 2020) that new technologies – in this case appetite-influencing pharmaceuticals – allow reclassification of previously normalized body experiences as pathological or redefine previously stigmatized body states as more morally acceptable, justifying greater medical intervention. Definitional uncertainties surrounding food noise have both clinical and symbolic consequences. For example, the pursuit of a “healthy weight” through the quieting of “food noise” may normalize or legitimize behaviors that ultimately compromise health. An underexplored but documented concern is the emergence of severe malnutrition-related complications associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as Wernicke encephalopathy (Fallows, 2025). At the same time, although these drugs have shown early therapeutic potential for binge-eating disorder (Radkhah et al., 2025), a condition strongly associated with obesity and characterized by recurrent binge-eating episodes without compensatory behaviors, emerging evidence also suggests that they may exacerbate or even precipitate restrictive eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (Sagarino & Luciano, 2024, May 5–8). Another concern is the potential mimicry or reinforcement of anorectic and bulimic eating patterns (Jensen et al., 2025). Moreover, for a person dieting or recovering from a restrictive eating disorder, it is currently unclear what a measurable change in food noise would suggest. [...]

These ambiguities are not unique to food noise but reflect broader unresolved challenges in defining and distinguishing eating-related cognitions, behaviors, and lived experience. As recently noted by Levin et al. (2025), many psychological constructs related to overeating are diagnosed through overlapping combinations of questionnaires, behavioral tests, and patient histories, often lacking clear boundaries, differential validity, or established mechanistic distinctions. Existing constructs may therefore capture overlapping dimensions of appetite and eating behavior rather than discrete phenomena. In this sense, food noise may then represent just another overlapping construct in this conceptual space. Moreover, individuals today can also become intensely preoccupied with food quantity and quality in response to abundant—often contradictory—nutritional advice, as well as widespread concerns about contaminants, synthetic chemicals, and micro- and nanoplastics permeating contemporary food systems (e.g., Barboza et al., 2018; Muncke et al., 2025). In these contexts, a relentless cognitive occupation with food and its safety can be read as a reasonable adaptive pattern rather than a pathology. And, if food noise functions to define pathology, then a powerful symbolic counterpoint emerges: quiet or silence. This arguably legitimizes the ideal of the mental state that does not disturb, think too much, or desire too much (e.g., Joy et al., 2025). Food silence then potentially reflects both health and virtue: less hunger and fewer thoughts mean more self-restraint and related moral achievements. In short, potential unwarranted pursuits of food silence risk turning the emerging construct of food noise into a tool that potentially seeds stigmatizing ideas about diet, health, and bodies that already serve the market for weight management services (Brewis & Wutich, 2019). These contradictions and concerns do not invalidate the phenomenon of food noise as potentially conceptually meaningful, particularly when it is carefully defined in operational terms within scientific research and its appropriate application. But this wider social science perspective illuminates its fragility as an analytical category, especially when detached from both theoretical models and sociocultural contexts. And greater attention to these issues widens the domains into which food noise research can subsequently expand, including social science.

from the conclusion of the paper:

Our core goal in this commentary has been to highlight the conceptual, methodological, clinical, and ethical uncertainties surrounding the emergent food noise construct. First, there is a need to ground the construct theoretically; second, to test whether the existing measures add anything beyond existing validated tools; third, examine how and why food noise varies across context, language, and social position. We suggest that clinical use should be done very cautiously until theoretical and methodological issues have been addressed. In Table 3 we synthesize unresolved issues identified herein and propose next steps. We also identify some examples of many and varied potential research directions this refinement of the food noise construct could support within and beyond clinical contexts. In summary, all that is clear is how little food noise is understood. At present, food noise may be most productively understood as a potentially meaningful experiential vocabulary that warrants further empirical clarification rather than as a settled diagnostic or therapeutic target. In the interim, existing validated constructs and instruments related to food preoccupation, cravings, and cue reactivity currently provide a more established evidentiary foundation for clinical and research applications. Notably, advancing research in this domain has much wider scientific, medical, and social implications, as we have noted with examples in Table 3. Appetite research will be core to that agenda, hopefully advancing with both caution and curiosity, accounting for its likely complex character.

tl;dr can y'all get off my fucking back about this post and just admit that the weight loss industry has their grubby little paws all over this term? that is has been helpful in describing a real issue people deal with does not make this immaterial.

There are many different (but often overlapping) forms of gender entitlement and gender anxiety. The

It's kind of crazy to me that she brings biphobia (which has a lot of mirrors with exorsexism), doesn't mention anything about how some bisexuals think they are better than monosexuals and how that's monophobia), but when it comes to nonbinary people...

Anyways, worse than giving credence to "binary-phobia" is her concept of "subversivism" which is what we can trace directly to the exorsexist attitudes in scholars like Jules Gill-Peterson and Kadji Amin. gonna just copy this whole section:

The majority of experiences as a trans activist and spoken word artist have taken place in what is increasingly becoming known as the “queer/trans” community. It is a subgroup within the greater LGBTIQ community that is composed mostly of folks in their twenties and thirties who are more likely to refer to themselves as “dykes,” “queer,” and/or “trans” than “lesbian” or “gay.” While diverse in a number of ways, this subpopulation tends to predominantly inhabit urban and academic settings, and is skewed toward those who are white and/or from middle-class backgrounds. In many ways, the queer/trans community is best described as a sort of marriage of the transgender movement’s call to “shatter the gender binary” and the lesbian community’s pro-sex, pro-kink backlash to 1980s-era Andrea Dworkinism. Its politics are generally antiassimilationist, particularly with regard to gender and sexual expression. This apparent limitlessness and lack of boundaries lead many to believe that “queer/trans” represents the vanguard of today’s gender and sexual revolution. However, over the last four years in which I’ve been a part of this community, I’ve become increasingly troubled by a trend that, while not applicable to all queer/trans folks, seems to be becoming a dominant belief in this community, one that threatens to restrict its gender and sexual diversity. I call this trend subversivism. Subversivism is the practice of extolling certain gender and sexual expressions and identities simply because they are unconventional or nonconforming. In the parlance of subversivism, these atypical genders and sexualities are “good” because they “transgress” or “subvert” oppressive binary gender norms. The justification for the practice of subversivism has evolved out of a particular reading (although some would call it a misreading) of the work of various influential queer theorists over the last decade and a half. To briefly summarize this popularized account: All forms of sexism arise from the binary gender system. Since this binary gender system is everywhere—in our thoughts, language, traditions, behaviors, etc.—the only way we can overturn it is to actively undermine the system from within. Thus, in order to challenge sexism, people must “perform” their genders in ways that bend, break, and blur all of the imaginary distinctions that exist between male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, and so on, presumably leading to a systemwide binary meltdown. According to the principles of subversivism, drag is inherently “subversive,” as it reveals that our society’s binary notions of maleness and femaleness are not natural, but rather are actively “constructed” and “performed” by all of us. Another way that one can be “transgressively gendered” is by identifying as genderqueer or genderfluid—i.e., refusing to identify fully as either woman or man.

The notion that certain gender identities and expressions are inherently “subversive” or “transgressive” can be seen throughout the queer/trans community, where drag and gender-bending are routinely celebrated, where binary-confounding identities such as “boy-identified-dyke” and identities and expressions that appear to subvert or blur gender binaries, subversivism automatically creates a reciprocal category of people whose gender and sexual identities and expressions are by default inherently conservative, even “hegemonic,” because they are seen as reinforcing or naturalizing the binary gender system. Not surprisingly, this often-unspoken category of bad, conservative genders is predominantly made up of feminine women and masculine men who are attracted to the “opposite” sex. One routinely sees this “dark side” of subversivism rear its head in the queer/trans community, where it is not uncommon to hear individuals critique or call into question other queers or trans folks because their gender presentation, behaviors, or sexual preferences are not deemed “subversive” enough. Indeed, if one fails to sufficiently distinguish oneself from heterosexual feminine women and masculine men, one runs the risk of being accused of “reinforcing the gender binary,” an indictment that is tantamount to being called a sexist. One of the most common targets of such critiques are transsexuals, and particularly those who are heterosexual and gender-normative post-transition. Indeed, because such transsexuals (in the eyes of others) transition from a seemingly “transgressive” queer identity to a “conservative” straight one, subversivists may even claim that they have transitioned in order to purposefully “assimilate” themselves into straight culture. While these days, such accusations are often couched in the rhetoric of current queer theory, they rely on many of the same mistaken assumptions that plagued the work of cissexist feminists like Janice Raymond and sociologists like Thomas Kando decades ago. The practice of subversivism also negatively impacts trans people on the MTF spectrum. After all, in our culture, the meanings of “bold,” “rebellious,” and “dangerous”—adjectives that often come to mind when considering subversiveness—are practically built into our understanding of masculinity. In contrast, femininity conjures up antonyms like “timid,” “conventional,” and “safe,” [note: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SERANO?????????????????????] also which seem entirely incompatible with subversion. Therefore, despite the fact that the mainstream public tends to be more concerned and disturbed by MTF spectrum trans people than their FTM spectrum counterparts, subversivism creates the impression that trans masculinities are inherently “subversive” and “transgressive,” while their trans feminine counterparts are “lame” and “conservative” in comparison. Subversivism’s privileging of trans masculinities over trans femininities helps to explain why cissexual queer women and FTM spectrum folks tend to dominate the queer/trans community: Their exceptional gender expressions and identities are routinely empowered and encouraged in such settings. In contrast, there is generally a dearth of MTF spectrum folks who regularly inhabit queer/trans spaces.

Literally nothing has changed in two decades and time is a flat circle. The talking points are all the fucking same. If Julia Serano has never actually understood how much she has contribued to exorsexist talking points in the community (straight down to being a white middle class woman talking about how the "queer community" is all young middle class gays who only want to be subversive as a shallow political statement).

Like, yeah Serano! 20 years later and nobody knows the term exorsexism, nobody knows the term misandrogyny, nonbinary people are constantly being harassed over not fitting into various new queer binaries, queer spaces are overwhelmingly binary, people with "subversive" identities are harassed until they recloset themselves, nobody uses neopronouns, transphobes have been using nonbinary people with blue hair and pronouns as one of their top favorite trans boogeymen for over a decade, but yeah Julia!!! Subversivism is totally a "dominant belief" in our community and its DEFINITELY the primary one we should be concerned about!!!! won't SOMEBODY think of the gender conforming white upper middle class straight trans women & men.

She gets so close to this at the end of the above quote, the constant recreation of the gender binary. That is a real problem... but its from exorsexism and binary ideology, Serano, not binaryphobia or subversivism.

It's not even that I think no nonbinary person has ever acted like this. Certainly, radical feminists have historically been hostile to both feminine and masculine people and argued that only a gender neutral presentation can be feminist. In fact, Serano goes on to talk about this, although she distinguishes these radical feminists as "cultural feminists," and primarily focuses on their attacks on femininity & not their equivalent hostility towards butches. It's not crazy to me that Serano really had such experiences in some queer/trans spaces, although to be completely honest I cannot help but feel that she may not be writing in totally good faith here, as the exorsexism in her writing makes me suspicious of how strongly she is presenting "subversivism" here.

But this comes back to the age-old issue of saying "certain queer spaces are actively hostile to [xyz group of trans people], therefore all other trans groups are privileged!" which is that different spaces have different biases. Serano goes on to talk about most queer/trans spaces have few MTF crossdressers or trans women; but there are plenty of people who will tell you that their local scene is dominated by those groups. People will talk about how "all" or "most" trans resources are exclusively about binders for trans men, but there are others who will talk about how the only resources near them are for trans women.

The point being, its not that queer/trans spaces are not frequently transmisogynistic. It is that people frequently refuse to listen to trans men or nonbinary people talk about similarly deeply rooted ATM or exorsexism in these spaces. So the criticism of these spaces fails to be a genuine move towards community reflection and positive change, because people think a solution that only considers one part of the problem and ignores the rest will actually fix things. After all, writers like Serano never seem concerned with the erasure of trans men, NB/GQ people assigned female, or drag kings from LGBT spaces that aren't the "queer/trans" culture is describing. The history of erasure and anti-transmasculinity simply disappears from the picture; its simply natural when a space is all MTF spectrum people and the absence of trans men or drag kings or others on the FTM spectrum doesn't need to be interrogated, but when a space is primarily FTM spectrum people, its uniquely problematic.

As a final note: Serano, like so many people, does not see nonbinary people as nonbinary whether we like it or not. What I mean is, for some people its being an androgynous boygirl freak or kill yourself out of dysphoria. And naturally, those people are going to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the system that punishes us at every turn for making the choice to live as a freak instead of die normal.

We are never given that grace or understanding, though. We constantly have our identities and our political theory as nb/gq/gnc people reduced down to a shallow political choice to be academically critiqued, not something that people - including working class people (like Leslie Feinberg) and people of color (like Dr. Marquis Bey), like - are creating to survive and find strength despite the world we live in.

The premise is essentially that people have a moral duty to choose their gender identity based on an arbitrary criteria of what is most transgressive. There's so many strange assumptions and errors in that premise that deserve thorough analysis. And another important part of this is that the elevation of <marginalised group a> is often based in bigoted assumptions about <marginalised group a>. Like, as a nonbinary person I don't appreciate it when people imply that my identity is a political choice and not just something that I am.

But we don't get to have that conversation because Serano is only capable of theorising about why she is The Most Oppressed Person Ever, apparently! I also think there's an element of projection here too. Exclusionist binary trans people think that they are the most transgressive people in the queer community. So when nonbinary, non-dysphoric, gnc people etc. say "hello, we're also trans", exclusionist binary trans people project their intentions onto us and think we're vying for their crown or something lol. Because I've seen like 100 exclusionist binary trans people complaining about this but I can't name a single example of it actually happening.

Exclusionist binary trans people think that they are the most transgressive people in the queer community. So when nonbinary, non-dysphoric, gnc people etc. say "hello, we're also trans", exclusionist binary trans people project their intentions onto us and think we're vying for their crown or something lol. Because I've seen like 100 exclusionist binary trans people complaining about this but I can't name a single example of it actually happening.

Here's some data from the 2022 United States Trans Survey Health & Wellbeing Report relevant to trans men & nonbinary people assigned female. This is the study's way of dividing the data, not mine. I included race & disability where they also provided that data. This is just the data relevant to transmascs that I found in a cursory look-through, I recommend people go to the actual report to see the data for themselves.

Trans men (32%) and nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB) (24%) were the most likely to avoid care due to mistreatment concerns. American Indian/Alaska Native respondents (32%) and Middle Eastern/North African respondents (37%) reported the highest shares of avoiding care.

Nonbinary AFAB people and trans men reported the greatest proportions of negative experiences with healthcare providers (55% and 53%, respectively). Respondents with disabilities also had higher rates of negative experiences, compared to those without a disability (58% vs. 41%, respectively).

Among gender categories, trans men and AFAB nonbinary individuals showed the poorest self-reported health (64% and 58%, respectively).

Trans men and AFAB nonbinary people show the highest burden with 31% and 34%, respectively, reporting that they did not see a healthcare provider because of cost. Cost was disproportionately a prohibitive factor for Multiracial (34%), American Indians/Alaska Native (33%), and Latine respondents (32%).

In 2022, AFAB nonbinary respondents and trans men faced the highest shares of hormone therapy denials at 14% and 13%, respectively. Trans women (21%) and trans men (19%) reported the highest shares of transition-related surgery denials.

While transgender men and AFAB nonbinary individuals often seek similar forms of care, nonbinary individuals experience a larger gap between desiring a procedure and receiving it, possibly due to systemic barriers or variations in how medical providers approach nonbinary transition-related care.

Methodology:

hi sorry uh. incredible miscommunication on my part lmfao.