fine, i'll say my two cents.
y'all know that the explanations that matt gave as to why he banned are predstrogen aren't for us, right? saying it was because of sexual content or exploding a car with hammers, or whatever. justification is irrelevant to his actions; he's an authority; metaphorically he's an abusive parent, and one of his children talked back so he hit her.
the justification isn't for us; it's for transphobes. it's for people who have already learned a predisposition against trans people, who will listen and agree that it's justified. she broke the rules! anyone who breaks the rules gets banned, duh. it's for people who won't think twice about how many trans women have been banned, censored, etc., who won't realize that this is just the latest in a pattern of attacks because, because anyone who got censored is just an individual who broke the rules.
he's telling them what to think. his words are targeted at the people who will listen to him without second guessing them.
the rules are not there to protect us. the purpose of a system is what it does. the words of the rules are not there as an explanation of their purpose; the words are the language and justification that the oppressor uses to keep their followers loyal. the rules themselves exist to keep us in line.
the explanation is not for us; the rule is.
(this post was written by a trans woman/girlthing/whatever.)
gummygunk
areudirty
pixelskylines
kaledo-art
dededos
