EVILPURPLECHAINSAW

Take for example, the ridiculous number of non-Black trans people validating the idea that, "a trans woman saying "kill all tme people" to vent her frustration is the same as a Black person saying "kill all non-Black people" to vent their frustration" because it's actually fundamentally not the same on multiple levels.

First and foremost trans women are not "the Black people of the trans community". Black trans people of all gender identities are the Black people of the trans community. The fact that that comparison has been normalized by primarily non-Black people as an "okay" comparison for other non-Black people to make is racist and anti-Black.

Secondly, let's remind ourselves of the contexts here. In context, most people do use "tme" as a shorthand for trans men, trans masculine people, and nonbinary people who had an F written on their birth certificates. You can try to claim that "um actually it includes cis people" but this is hyper niche borderline chronically online trans discourse. It means other trans people. It means other people who are also marginalized on the basis of their gender identity.

So, if we're actually going to make an accurate comparison to a racialized situation here, follow me for a moment.

If a Black person said "kill all non-Black people" after weeks and months of primarily talking about how much they can't stand and don't trust other racial minorities, encouraging other Black people to cut everyone who isn't Black out of their lives while specifically focusing on how Black people should cut ties with other PoC, how solidarity and unity between racial minorities is impossible because other PoC (especially any specific demographic of non-Black PoC) can't be trusted, and constantly went on and on not about their hatred of white people but about their hatred of other racial minorities — I think it would be very fair to claim that Black person is racist towards other non-Black PoC.

Just like it's very fair to claim that a trans woman who says "kill all tme people" after weeks and months of primarily talking about how much she can't stand and doesn't trust other trans people who aren't like her, encourages other trans women to cut everyone who isn't a trans woman out of their lives while specifically focusing on how trans women should cut ties with other trans people, talks about how solidarity and unity between trans people is impossible because non-trans woman trans people (especially trans men) can't be trusted, and constantly goes on and on not about her hatred of cis people but about her hatred of other trans people is transphobic towards other trans people.

Trans discourse and racial discourse are not the same. There are absolutely aspects of Black political theory that non-Black trans people can draw upon and take notes from. Black activists and theorists have been working for over a century both outside and inside the trans community on amazing work and have laid a solid groundwork for sociopolitical change that we can and should be following.

But like I said, trans women aren't "the Black people of the trans community". Black trans people of all gender identities are the Black people of the trans community.

Tw for pedophilia, transphobia, csa discussions.

suggestrogen/isuggestforcefem was a popular tumblr account that recently deactivated after facing major pushback from posts she made regarding pedophilia.

There are now multiple popular blogs claiming this was a harrassment campaing, pedojacketing, stalking, etc. Interestingly enough, the people defending her very rarely show what she actually said. So here i aim to compile everything that happened and provide context. If you have heard that this was rooted in transphobia, i encourage you to read this in its entirety and judge for yourself.

Many people are saying her words were misconstrued. According to these people: what she said was this:

"Pedophiles are not ontologically evil, and there is a difference between pedophilia and child abuse."

If this was all of it, while im sure it would have caused discourse because it is a controversial thing to say, I don't think it would have caused this much pushback. But if you actually read what she said, you'll know this wasn't all that happened and it is leaving out huge amounts of context in an effort to make her look better.

1. Previously problematic behavior.

Before this current debacle, isff had already been called out for displaying transphobia towards trans men. Here are some examples of this sort of behavior.

I don't particularly participate in transandrophobia discourse but I find it incredibly disingenous to pretend trans men dont face specific issues. Are trans women affected by forced birth as a means of detransition? Are they affected by claims of being "broken women who cant think for themselves and are being manipulated"? No! This isn't to say there are no issues with the transmasc community or that trans men never benefit from transmisogyny. But one thing is to say that, and another is to consistently villanize trans men, to treat them like they are just as privileged as cis men and face NO struggles of their own. Like the only struggle that matters is that of white trans women.

This is the first example of isff displaying black and white thinking. There can be no nuance regarding trans men and their role in transmisogyny. It's either "trans men are oppressed by trans women" or "trans men are oppressing trans women." There is no room in her head for a potentially nuanced opinion. We will continue to see this as we go forward with her takes on pedophilia.

2. The pedophilia saga.

A few days ago, ISFF posted this:

These are not her own words, she is posting on behalf of a friend. But she does agree with the points made and defends them:

Many people seem to think what she is saying is perfectly reasonable, and while I think many of them are just blatantly malicious, I also think many are just gullible, so I will attempt to break down all her points in good faith.

1. Pedophilia is attraction not action, therefore, calling pedophiles child abusers is unfair unless they actually have abused anyone: This is the only true thing this whole thing says, and even then, it is very disingenous. If a pedophile has not acted on their urges, then they are by definition, not an abuser. HOWEVER, they are more likely to become an abuser due to the persistent nature of the desires. In the same way a person with homicidal urges is more likely to murder someone with time, a pedophile is also more likely to act on their desires if they don't learn to deal with said urges adequately. So technically true, but leaving out the context that yes, these urges do evolve and then lead to actions, to me reads as manipulative. A pedophile is not going to be harmless if they don't do the work to manage their disorder. It's active work, which is why promoting this passive view on pedophilia is extremely dangerous, because it makes people think their urges will be fine on their own instead of actively working on them.

2. Pedophilia is similar to having a noncon kink. If having a noncon kink is okay and not going to lead to rape, then how is pedophilia any different?: False equivalency, kinks and pedophilia are different psychological experiences. Dark kinks are usually not literal. Very often it is the brain creating subconscious symbolism in the realm of fantasy that doesn't reflect their views on reality. So a person with a noncon kink is different than someone with rape urges, which is what a pedophile is.

3. If people who experience attraction to adults are not going to force that attraction on every person they're attracted to, why do we expect the same for pedophiles?: Second false equivalency, ordinary sexual attraction is also a different psychological experience to pedophilia. A gay person is not going to rape every men he meets, but they will still act out their desires in consensual spaces. Plus, unless the person has an unhealthy view on sex, the idea of rape would be distressing enough that it would discourage the person from forcing their attraction. At their core, these desires are rooted in the attraction towards consensual activities, so even in a situation where you find yourself attracted to someone who may not reciprocate, because rape is not in line with your desires, the attraction won't lead to abuse easily (unless as stated, the person does have unhealthy views on sex).

But pedophiles inherently have a disordered view on sex. It is a disorder where you are consistently attracted to people who cannot consent to you, so there isn't this disconnect between their desires and the act of rape. The desire is rape. Additionally, while a gay person can eventually find a consensual partner, pedophiles can't! No, i don't expect gay men to force themselves on every men they meet, but I do realize they'll be inclined to explore their sexuality consensually. A pedophile will probably also feel inclined to explore their sexuality, but there is no consensual alternative.

4. Pedophiles are a marginalized group comparable to queer people: Are they? The people who benefit from the social structures that promote CSA because it aligns with their wants are marginalized? Sure, the topic of pedophilia is taboo, but it is also structurally reinforced, so it evidently isn't the same thing. Now, some people will argue that it is child abusers who benefit, not pedophiles. But a pedophile is just one kind of person who wishes to abuse children. Sure, they aren't the only ones. But they are a demographich that benefits because their desires align with the structures in place. Wanting to rape children for power vs wanting to rape children for sexual attraction isn't that different, both are desires that if acted on cause harm, and the healthy thing to do is to encourage these people to seek help and coping mechanisms instead of telling them "well, it's just like being gay!"

3. Consequences vs call out culture.

Before anyone says this is harrassment. If a popular blog came out defending nazism or terf ideology, wouldn't you all be outraged? You would! And you would understand the push back as not harrassment, but retaliation. So why is it that when it comes to pedophilia you all suddenly turn a blind eye? Suddenly we should just block and move on. Why is this the one topic you want people to stay quiet about?

People say it's because she's trans and... really? The point of trans feminism is to treat trans women as human beings, and I don't think infantilizing trans women as people who do no wrong ever is treating them like humans. Some trans women are bad people, not because of their gender, but because human beings are capable of harm.

It is important however to not pretend this is representative of transfeminism. Terfs will take advantage of this and push the narrative this is an example of trans women being predatory. It is an exaple of a trans woman being predatory. A niche tumblr blog is not representative of an incredibly diverse demographic.

The people accusing those criticizing her of transphobia are ironically pushing this rethoric. By saying criticizing one trans woman is somehow criticizingball trans women, you portray trans women as some kind of monolith. Even though suggestrogen's beliefs are not at all accepted by the trans community at large (and no, your terminally online tumblr mutuals arent the representatives of what most trans women think).

4. What this says about site wide culture:

This really has shown some of the major pitfalls of tumblr culture. Many people will fall for bigoted ideals if presented to them under supposedly progressive language. Many people here treat trans womanhood as a sort of sainthood status where trans women are no longer people, but entities incapable of harm. Many people are attempting to normalize predatory behavior under the guise of kink. Many blogs have been pushing for this for a long time now, and this is just the first person who finally came out and said it without filters. This was the result of a myriad of bad ideologies the site has been fostering finally coming together all at once.

Most charitably, we can assume she means to say: "LGB drop the T" and "not defending pedos" have the same root reason, being that "this group makes us look bad, so for our own survival, we must cut them off."

However, it is incredibly tone-deaf to use the community that is most often associated with being pedophiles for this. The idea that, "if you are trans, you want to prey on children," is not only logically unsound (how would every single trans person be a child predator without fail?) but would then imply "pedophile = child predator," which we know ISFF does not agree with:

Here's the thing: ISFF appears to wish to achieve worldwide understanding of two points:

Pedophile is not synonymous with child abuser or predator. That being afflicted with pedophilia does not equal action. Or, as her friend put it in that original post, quote, "thought-crimes are not real in the case of people attracted to children".

You should be, quote, "proud to be friends with a pedophile", that pedophiles are, quote, "vulnerable community members".

Point 1, in all honesty, by itself, isn't unsound. It is true, pedophilia is a medical disorder, one a person can not choose to have, just like one does not choose to have suicidal or homicidal thoughts. One should not have to feel guilty for a burden they did not choose, and it should be more understood that pedophilia is a disorder that needs attention and coping skills to manage, not shame and ridicule.

It is why the "Radqueer" community exists in many aspects: people who are abused for having this disorder they did not choose feel lost and hopeless. Therefore, the only people who will even listen to them are other disordered individuals (pedophiles, in this case). This leads to an echo chamber, which can lead to normalization of the disorder, and a higher increased chance of illegal activity and harmful behavior; the more your peers normalize and glorify something harmful ("MAP pride"), the more you internalize this notion and normalize it to yourself, the more the boundaries of what are acceptable begin to wane.

This is why point 2 is the biggest issue.

Pedophilia is nothing to be proud of. Nothing to be "ashamed" of, either, but certainly not proud. Much like how you should not be proud to be suicidal, depressed, homicidal, etc. It is not your fault you may have these things, they are just unfortunate inflictions out of your control. What you can be proud of is the hard work you put into coping.

Steering clear of things like true crime podcasts/blocking violent content to curb homicidal thoughts, picking up meditation and anger management to curb homicidal urges, letting the desires wash over you, accepting them, and move on peacefully until you get through your first argument with someone where you didn't spiral into rage or have horrific thoughts because you employed your coping skills. That is something to be very proud of!

I would not be proud of my friend for being suicidal, homicidal, etc. I would be proud of my friend for learning to manage and overcome such hardships.

Whereas here, ISFF wants to normalize and soften the impact of just how dangerous these disorders can become if they are normalized, glorified, or downplayed, the best course of action in reality is to not shame the person for what they can not change, but encourage them for how they can make things better for themselves and everyone else.

But, back to that screenshot of ISFF proclaiming, quote, "If you think that pedophiles would fuck children you're wrong and you're the problem!!"

As said, while it is true having a disorder does not mean those actions are guaranteed to land you in that spot, it does mean that the likelihood is exacerbated immensely.

People with suicidal thoughts are not guaranteed to kill themselves, but they are much more likely than a person who doesn't suffer from constant suicidal thoughts to kill themselves.

Same with homicidal thoughts. That person is not automatically going to kill people. But, the person who has urges to and fantasizes of killing people is much more likely to do it than a person who doesn't think of those things.

Even things like ASPD (colloquially and sometimes pejoratively known as "sociopathy"). These people are not guaranteed to lie, steal, cause fights, or be jerks. Some are great at coping, or at masking, or otherwise have methods to curb, diminish, or stop urges. But, the reason things like "being mean", "committing crime" and "lying" are "symptoms" of the disorder is not because everyone who has ASPD does them, but because the disorder makes you much more likely to do these things on impulse by nature of how it affects your brain. Much like all the above examples, it does not mean these people are destined to be monsters or act awful. Many live normal lives, and are normal people.

Therefore, pedophiles are not guaranteed to molest or rape children, but they are at a higher risk of doing so by nature of the disorder. Which is why what I said earlier holds true: these people need to learn coping skills, avoid triggers, and be responsible.

i-suggest-therapy above put it best:

But pedophiles inherently have a disordered view on sex. It is a disorder where you are consistently attracted to people who cannot consent to you, so there isn't this disconnect between their desires and the act of rape. The desire is rape. Additionally, while a gay person can eventually find a consensual partner, pedophiles can't! No, i don't expect gay men to force themselves on every men they meet, but I do realize they'll be inclined to explore their sexuality consensually. A pedophile will probably also feel inclined to explore their sexuality, but there is no consensual alternative.

On that note, the earlier part of ISFF's friends post:

[pedophiles] and [child abuser] are entirely separate. If you conflate those two terms to mean the same thing, you might as well say 'trans woman' is synonymous with 'misogynistic rapist'

As just said, pedophiles have the urge/desire/thoughts to rape children. They may never act on it, but they would not be pedophiles if they did not have these urges/desires/thoughts.

Therefore, by using this example, ISFF's friend is implying all trans women have the urge/desire/thoughts to be misogynistic rapists.

...To give the benefit, I don't think they thought the implications of that one through. A really, really bad blunder, nevertheless.

On the topic of establishing coping skills, this is exactly NOT what would be pushed for if you want pedophiles to be recognized as struggling with a mental health condition.

I would not give a homicidal person a gun. I would not give a suicidal person a gun. Therefore, I would not let a pedophile be around children unsupervised. In fact, it's probably best they avoid children in general, because why on earth would you argue in favor of this? It certainly doesn't help kids, and it doesn't even help the pedophiles they are attempting to "defend", because it would most likely be the number-one trigger to their disorder! To a pedophile working on curbing their thoughts and coping, I imagine that being around children would cause incredible distress and anxiety. Framing it as "protecting your property from degenerates" is incredibly bad faith. Again, I would not let my homicidal friend walk around with a gun in a populated area. Not because I think they're a "degenerate", but because I do not want them to hurt others or distress themself.

This is also why age play is very different when a pedophile engages with it versus a non-pedophile. To someone with this disorder, that can help normalize it. It's not guaranteed, but it's a much higher risk, and therefore should be avoided. Even if it is an "outlet", you are still feeding into this harmful desire, which does have negative consequences on your brain. Dopamine is a very, very dangerous tool in this case.

In conclusion: ISFF is not catching heat for simply trying to say "pedophiles have a mental health disorder, and we should try to not villainize them on having this disorder alone"; a statement while, still controversial, I believe most people can warm up to.

No, the issue here is the glorification/normalization, the promotion of softening such a disorder, of un-medicalizing it. There is a way to go about these topics, and this is not it. Certainly not tying it to the trans community when it is a completely separate issue of mental health.

...Sorry if this is derailing in any way. Here's another post of her being transphobic towards trans men, just because I didn't see it shown and I find it really distasteful:

this is a thing that's actually picking up steam among "transfeminists" and "tme lesbians" in particular

I believe that transfems overall should be able to make posts addressing other transfems only, complain about harassment (including naming specific transmascs as perpetrators), and talk about transmisogyny, all without people jumping to take them in the worst faith possible.

That also apllies to transfems who are bad people and are known to have bad opinions. Not everything they say needs to be pulled apart in public view. They have experiences and feelings outside of their bigotry, and they're entitled to being treated with dignity as individuals.

Turning the conversation around transandrophobia into a mass stalking shitshow is only gonna repell good faith participants of any gender identity.

I am getting really unhappy and suspicious about this new strain of transandrophobia cataloguing accounts, venturing into the cringe compilation territory of discourse, and I think we all need to tone that shit down. It helps no-one.

male privilege as a term was not coined with trans men in mind and its shitty to use it against us

This isn't to say we shouldn't be documenting any instances of transandrophobia! Considering how many people deny that anyone ever even acts like this towards us, having proof of these beliefs and the actions resulting from them has obvious utility. I just think, when someone's hate is already so thoroughly documented, it's better to just all block them, stop talking about them (except to let others know to block them), and let them starve for attention.

The most productive thing to do if you're going to post an example of some awful shit someone said is to do some thinking and analysis about where these ideas are coming from, and what non-obvious beliefs they might be reinforcing. Otherwise, examples are useful for documentation, but we're not learning or proving anything when we post the twentieth "all these people should die" take from a known transandrophobe.

At present, the dominant strand of transfeminism does not promote unity and solidarity. Instead, it has fallen into relying upon toxic and often separationist politics- a crude distortion of the founding ideas of transfeminism. Emi Koyama, author of The Transfeminist Manifesto, was explicit in transfeminisms inclusion of all trans people in its movement. She wrote that transfeminism began primarily for trans women and that "it is also open to other queers, intersex people, trans men, non-trans women, non-trans men and others" (2). Her initial publication of The Transfeminist Manifesto was in the year 2001. Two years later, she revisited it and added the following in the postscript of the 2003 edition "I take full blame for the fact that this manifesto is heavily focused on issues male-to-female transsexual people face, while neglecting unique struggles that female-to-male trans people and other transgender and genderqueer people face" (3). Numerous other transfeminist publications recognise the need for greater solidarity between all trans people and for transfeminism to be explicitly inclusive of all transgender and nonbinary people. Talia Bettcher explained in 2017 that "since trans men are also vulnerable to sexism, transphobia, and the interblending thereof, trans feminism would be ill-advised to exclude them from its purview" (4). [Reference 2: Koyama, Emi. The Transfeminist Manifesto, 2001 & 2003 p. 1] [Reference 3: Koyama, Emi. The Transfeminist Manifesto, 2001 & 2003 p. 10] [Reference 4: Bettcher, Talia, Trans Feminism: Recent Philosophical Developments, 2017, p.2]

"Transandrophobia describes the transphobia primarily experienced by trans men. While trans men do experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, they also experience an intersection of transphobia and a hatred of men or masculinity. Arguably, much of what is called transmisogyny for the experiences of trans women is also partially an intersection of transphobia and a hatred of men or masculinity. The ideal word for the concept is sadly marred by disingenuous cis men, but to use 'misandry' here tentatively is not an endorsement of any kind of MRA-style politics, but a convenient shorthand for a kind of hatred of men or masculinity which has a significance in (and only in) the context of transphobia. As alluded to, the term transandrophobia is the most popular term presently for the transphobia primarily experienced by trans men. Earlier terms did include 'transmisandry', which, aside from one academic usage in the context of an intersection of transphobia and racism (5), has not enjoyed much usage due to knee-jerk rejection of the term's suffix. In short, 'misandry' in this solely trans context conveys the transphobia rooted in a hatred of men or masculinity." [Reference 5: Martino, Wayne, Omercajic, Kenan, A trans pedagogy of refusal: interrogating cisgenderism, the limits of antinormativity and trans necropolitics. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 29, 2021, p.679–694.]

"All trans groups experience a mixture of misogyny, 'misandry' and misandrogyny- the levels of which vary from group to group. Trans women may experience misogyny (such as unwanted sexualisation for being female and trans), however, they may often experience 'misandry' (such as the vitriol some transphobes espouse which accuses trans women of being 'violent males) and misandrogyny (such as transphobic rhetoric which centers around a trans person's appearance being androgynous and thus not easily sortable into male or female categories . This may result in slurs like 'heshe' being used). Trans men, on the other hand, may experience 'misandry' (such as accusations they are going to transition into -'violent men'), misogyny (such as insinuations trans men are being led astray and that they are incapable of thinking for themselves) and a similar kind of misandrogyny trans women may face. Nonbinary people may experience misandrogyny (such as being forcibly put into a male or female category against their wishes, especially in a medical setting), misogyny (such as rhetoric which claims being nonbinary is a social contagion amongst those assigned female at birth) or 'misandry' (such as rhetoric that claims those assigned male at birth who are nonbinary are identifying as such in order to be predatory). In short, every kind of trans person experiences a mix of misogyny, 'misandry' and misandrogyny. It differs from group to group as well as from person to person."