#but they’re still being called terfs by people who think lesbians can be trans men | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

radkindoffeminist · 2 years

Text

Things I really want TRAs to get through their fucking skulls.

B*tch, c*nt, and wh*re are misogynistic slurs. This isn’t something I am ever going to debate. These are derogatory terms used specifically against women and using them against women doesn’t make them less of a slur. Using them because ‘in some places c*nt isn’t a slur’ doesn’t make them less of a slur. Also, I’m literally fucking British and have lived in Scotland for some years now so before you start with the whole ‘but in some places it’s completely normalised and used commonly’: it’s not. I have heard some men use it to insult their friends, but it’s not thrown around constantly and is still typically used to degrade women.

R*tard is an ableist slur which should also never be used. (And, to be honest, lots of radfems need to learn this one too.)

We don’t want trans people dead. We don’t want them to struggle and be without help. We just disagree on the help that they should get. You think the only way to help them is to validate their gender and help them to change their entire body in the hope that might make them feel better. We think that mental health support designed to help them cope with their body issues is a much more effective form of support. No situation involves killing them or letting them all commit suicide. We want those who are genuinely struggling to get help.

Slight caveat to the point above: the males who fetishise womanhood and being a lesbian and who aren’t struggling with their body and their identity but just get off to being in a dress and want lesbians to fuck them? They don’t deserve help. They’re pornsick men. But the ones who really are struggling and just trying to get by do need help.

Your community is homophobic as shit. Saying that it’s just a ‘small minority’ who support genital preferences and say rejecting trans people is transphobic and call lesbians TERFs for not liking dick does not fix the problem and only serves to diminish what those who have been at the receiving end of this hateful and homophobic rhetoric have been through. You need to start speaking up against this rhetoric and telling people that it’s not fucking okay. You need to start taking a stand anytime someone says lesbians need to learn to like (girl)dick or to have a sexless relationship with a trans woman to be inclusive or uses the term genital preference (certainly if they’re saying it’s wrong/that people can learn to get over a ‘preference’; but even saying that it’s okay is homophobic because an inherent sexuality is not a preference).

Your community is misogynistic. Even ignoring the fact that the idea that trans women are women and that they know exactly what womanhood is like is misogynistic in and of itself, trans ideology is deeply misogynistic. It’s not okay to use misogynistic slurs, even against women you don’t like. It’s not okay to send rape threats to women, even ones you don’t like. It’s deeply misogynistic to blame all transphobia on TERFs when it’s men who are typically in charge of laws being changed and men who are the ones going around assaulting and mustering trans women. And it’s deeply misogynistic to tell women to get the fuck over themselves and learn to deal with having trans women in their spaces. Women built female spaces for a reason and you are completely ignoring our sex-based oppression which is deeply misogynistic.

Oh, and trans inclusive language? That’s misogynistic to. Forcing women to refer to themselves by their organs and functions especially when women have been seen as little more than their organs/reproductive abilities; making this language completely inaccessible to many women, especially those who speak English as a second language; forcing this language almost exclusively on women while men are still called men (or sometimes just cis men to be a little more specific); and telling any woman who has a problem with it, regardless of their reasoning, to get over themselves? That’s all deeply misogynistic.

Self-ID will be dangerous. I don’t care what stupid reasoning you come up with it not being dangerous because it will be. Men have and will continue to pretend to be women to access those spaces and creep on women because self-ID means that all they have to do is claim that they’re a woman and suddenly it’s transphobic for them to not be allowed to enter. There is no ‘you can tell the difference’ because it doesn’t matter what your personal opinion of that person is: if they say that they are a woman, they have to be allowed into women’s spaces and creepy men will abuse that. (And, no, you can’t argue that trans women ‘have always used women’s spaces and it’s been fine’ because we both know that we live in a different time now. It’s no long a very, very small number of trans people who genuinely tried their hardest to pass as the opposite sex. So unless you’re happy to exclude non-transitioning and non-passing trans people from the spaces which match their ‘gender’, these are the only options.)

Keeping spaces sex-segregated is the only viable alternative to self-ID for most public spaces. I’m happy to hear any ideas of how you’re going to make sure that only trans women can access women’s spaces and that cis men will never be able abuse self-ID to get in, but I don’t think such a solution exists. Therefore, I will continue to defend these spaces being sex-segregated because that’s the best way to ensure that the women in these spaces are safe from the abuses of males.

Continuing to scream that we’re so worried about sharing spaces with trans women ignores what you’re actually asking for in regards to self-ID. As above, literally any person will be able to say ‘I’m a woman’ and access these spaces so while you may focus on the ‘genuine’ trans women who just want to use the bathroom and be more comfortable than they would be in the male spaces, we worried about every single male abusing the existence of self-ID in order to abuse women. Remember what self-ID is: anyone can identify as any gender at any time just by claiming that they are that gender.

‘You shouldn’t be scared of public bathrooms because the bathroom in your home is gender neutral’ is the stupidest fucking argument. Like, I’m sorry, but how fucking idiotic do you have to be to think that comparing a private and public space is not only a good idea but will also support your point? You share a bathroom in your house with people you choose to live with and invite over; you share a public bathroom with strangers. Do you not understand that people can be comfortable sharing a space with family and friends, but uncomfortable sharing with literal fucking strangers who don’t always have the best intentions???

Saying women are adult human females or that they have vaginas does not reduce women down to their organs and you are ignorant as shit is you continue to repeat this lie. Reducing someone to their organs (or any other feature) means that you think the only important/significant thing about them, that you view them as being only of value because of this feature. You know like conservatives saying that women are only valuable/useful for sex and giving birth to children? That’s what reducing women to their organs really means. Stating the common characteristic shared by a certain group does not mean you view the whole group as being valued for that one thing. It’s why no one says that lesbians are female homosexuals reduces lesbians to their sexuality: because, in this case, we recognise that we are stating the shared characteristic that lesbians have.

Radfems don’t believe in gender as a concept. If you’re talking about how radfems believe sex = gender then your argument is already flawed. If you’re talking about radfems believing in gender in any way then your argument is already flawed. We believe in the existence of biological sex and recognise its impact on people in current society, fighting for rights of women who are discriminated against on the basis of their sex. We use the words women and girls which describe people of the female sex based upon their age: adults are women and minors are girls. Men and boys work similarly. These terms are therefore sex-based, not gendered/gender-based. We believe that, functionally, gender is a set of misogynistic stereotypes which tells people (though especially women) how they are supposed to act and serves no purpose in society other than to make people continually question themselves and force people into little boxes. We believe that TRAs and conservatives have gone two different ways with gender and both are harmful: conservatives telling people that they must follow gender roles based on their biological sex and TRAs telling people to identify with a gender based upon what gender roles they like/take up.

Define woman. Please. All we want is a coherent definition of woman which doesn’t rely on stereotypes, debunked brain sex, circular reasoning, or calling it ‘a feeling’. No one has ever been able to give us a coherent definition.

Yeah, brain sex has been debunked after some fucking massive studies into it. Turns out, it was always rooted in misogyny and most of the previous studies were basically just confirmation bias to ‘prove’ that men and women are ‘wired differently’ to give a scientific foundation to all the misogynistic stereotypes surrounding women. Once you account for brain size, we’re really not all that different after all. So no, a trans woman cannot just be born with a female brain; a trans man cannot just be born with a male brain. No such thing exists.

Which argument do you want: there is absolutely no difference between cis and trans people and therefore many people have probably had crushes on trans people without knowing it OR trans people are in danger of being abused/raped/murdered specifically because they’re trans? Because the first argument would suggest that trans people could never be targeted for being trans because people will always see them as their chosen gender and the only people who would know that they’re trans is people that they’ve told but the latter point means trans people are targeted because people can see that they’re trans and therefore many/most trans people don’t pass and so it’s unlikely that people have had all these crushes on trans people because it’s fairly obvious that they’re trans? Because I’m willing to admit that some trans people really do pass and I would not know that they’re trans unless directly told, but the percentage who pass that well is minuscule and hardly representative of all trans people.

Your community is racist. Stop leaning on the whole ‘black women had their womanhood denied from them like trans women are’. Black women weren’t seen as women because they were seen as less than human; they were still viewed as female which is why they were raped and forced through pregnancies. Stop saying that attributes we say are more likely to be found in men are more commonly found in black women therefore we see black women as men. That’s an argument used in bad faith and you know it. Like please learn the difference between ‘more commonly found’ and ‘exclusively found’.

Your community is intersexist. Intersex people are not pawns to be used in your argument. Like 0.1% of the population having a condition which genuinely makes their biological sex more complicated than male or female does not disprove the sex binary and, if anything, the fact that these people struggle with many health problems and are typically infertile goes to show that the sex binary does exist. Moreover, if gender is completely different from sex then conditions which make your biological sex complicated/mixed should say nothing about gender. (And yes, I said 0.1% of the population even though intersex conditions occur at a higher rate than that because most intersex conditions don’t make your sex more complicated than male or female so only a small percentage of intersex conditions overall make people’s biological sex complicated.)

Shut the fuck about PCOS. My condition is not to be used in your arguments. Radfems have never used my condition against me or called me less of a woman for it, so you don’t get to say I’m less female for it either or tell me that you somehow know that radfems see PCOS sufferers that way. You’re the one who abused the existence of my condition and implies that I’m not fully female to make some backwards arguments. You’re the ones abusing the existence of my condition.

Going one step further than PCOS, shut up about women without a uterus or ovaries or post-menopausal women. We know they’re fucking women, dipshits. They’re still adult human females, just ones who are older, went through some trauma which resulted in surgical removal of their sex organs, or had a developmental issue in utero which resulted in them not developing certain organs. (See that I said developmental issue? Because you know what we call people who didn’t grow a uterus but that’s not a problem/issue at all? Men.)

A lot of your views of gender are based on stereotypes. A lot more than you’re willing to admit. You can try to pretend that you’re above all the stereotypes and I’m certain that you genuinely believe that you are, but no one has been able to define woman without referring to brain sex (which is normally just down to stereotypes and debunked anyway) or just straight up stereotypes. And so many people list various stereotypes as one of the reasons they knew that they were trans or non-binary. Even when people say that they don’t ‘feel connected to womanhood’ or whatever as a reason why they’re NB, it’s often because they’re androgynous or not completely feminine 100% of the time. They won’t ever admit that as being the reason, but you can see from how they speak about womanhood and their disconnect to it that it’s true.

Not everything is a fucking dog whistle! A dogwhistle is an inconspicuous term/phrase/symbol which a group uses and only those who are within the group recognise. Like how 88 is a white supremacist number because H is the 8th letter of the alphabet so it’s HH which is Heil Hitler or how ‘I just want the trains to run on time’ is a fascist phrase because it refers to people saying that Mussolini was bad but at least he got the trains to run on time. The only thing that might be considered a radfem dog whistle is TIM/TIF, not because it has a secret double meaning that only we recognise, but because it’s a term which radfems typically use and often isn’t understood outside of radfem circles. It stands for Trans Identified Male/Female and we mean exactly that. We don’t have things that secretly mean that trans people should die. We say exactly what we mean but you just choose to believe the secret meaning you made up over what we are directly telling you, probably because ‘I hate all trans people and I want them to all die’ isn’t something we say.

Saying that we only care about what genitals we have is a simplification of our views which is basically incorrect and used to ignore all our actual issues while making us out to look like creeps. Do you also not understand the homophobic history behind it? Being used against gay people to ask why they were so obsessed with what genitals someone had and why they couldn’t be with the opposite sex? (I’ll answer that: of course you don’t give a shit because you don’t care about homophobia or using homophobic rhetoric which supports your ideology.) We don’t actually care about if someone has a dick or vagina. We care about the fact that the dick havers were raised with male socialisation and that means that they experience life differently from us. We care about the fact that the penis owners are much more likely to abuse women and that far too many will do whatever it takes to be around vulnerable women so that they can abuse them. We care about the fact that we have faced specific issues because we have vaginas both directly (eg: menstruation and childbirth) and indirectly (eg: period stigma, medical misogyny, catcalling, and other forms of discrimination) and we want spaces away from the very people who uphold this misogynistic system to be able to discuss our issues openly. But you constantly ignore all of these issues and make it out to be just about genitals because you ignore our arguments and want to make it out like we’re fucking idiots.

‘Here’s six women. One of them is a trans woman. Guess who’ Isn’t the argument that you think it is. Firstly, literally no one is saying that trans people cannot pass at all. No one. Of course we understand that SOME trans people do pass really well and we would never be able to differentiate them from actual women. Secondly, just because they appear like women doesn’t make them women. They are still biologically male and hence a man. It really doesn’t matter how feminine or well passing they are; they’re men. Thirdly, it is not representative of all trans people. Yes, some people pass well but the photos you show are almost exclusively of rich models who are wearing heavy makeup and who’ve had extensive work done which isn’t accessible to most trans people and you’re basically telling them that if they can’t pass so well then they must not be women. Isn’t that wrong by your own ideology? Fourthly, you really going to do that and then accuse us of saying that women must be feminine? Really? And finally, this is almost always used as a trap against us, hence why we often refuse to respond, but you’re not proving anything. You’re not fighting against any of our arguments; you just think you’re fighting against the whole sexual dimorphism and generally being able to tell women and men apart but being able to generally do something doesn’t mean that there aren’t exceptions? Exceptions don’t make the rule.

I’m not here to argue about what I would believe in some theoretical utopia. I’m here to argue about what is happening in reality. I’ve heard the line ‘but would sex be important if we lived in a society which didn’t discriminate against people by their sex/gender aside from when medically necessary?’ way too much. And the answer is no, but we don’t live in that world and that world is not going to exist within my lifetime at the very least, probably not for centuries. We live in a world where women are treated differently because of their sex. We live in a world where period stigma and medical misogyny and catcalling and rape and domestic violence and devaluation of women’s labour all exist, among other deeply misogynistic issues. So me fighting to get people to recognise that sex is an important characteristic and defending it’s legal protections is not because I deeply believe that it should be an important thing, but because the way in which women are treated by society, particularly at the hands of men, shows that we have built a world in which someone’s sex is an important characteristic and which will affect many aspect of our lives and hence we need to recognise the reality of the world in which we live in. If the end goal is to build a world in which sex is irrelevant outside of medicine then we first need to recognise why it’s not a reality now and work to fix that rather than pretending that everyone’s going to go along with us and misogyny will completely disappear overnight or arguing the what-ifs of this purely theoretical world that we will not live to see.

Radical feminism is about freeing women from their sex-based oppression and fighting for sex-based rights. As a result, males of all genders all inherently excluded from our feminism. To say that we exclude trans people completely is ignoring the fact that trans men and AFAB non-binary people are included in our fight for women’s rights because, regardless of how they identify, they have and will continue to be oppressed on the basis of their sex and they deserve rights to protect them from that discrimination. Your unhappiness that we’re only including people on the basis of their sex is not my fucking problem. Your unhappiness over trans women specifically not being included is not my fucking problem. Movements which seek to free people from their oppression don’t owe it to you to include everyone, they only have to include the oppressed people that they are fighting for. Your inability to understand that is not my fucking problem and only goes to show your entitlement.

If you don’t argue with me in good faith, don’t except me to argue in good faith either. If you’re going to twist my words, ignore what I say, tell me my sources are wrong with no evidence (or tell me that it’s not a source you like/trust enough), and refuse to respond to many of my points then don’t expect me to do the same. I have tried way too many times to argue in good faith only to end up having my points ignored, my sources dismissed, my words twisted if not just straight up having words put into my mouth. If you are not going to be open minded when you talk to me, don’t expect me to put the time in to explain things to you. If you are rude or dismissive or ignoring me or not asking questions, I’m not going to put in all the mental and emotional labour to explain concepts to you and you have not ‘won’ the argument if I have enough and stop responding. You are not owed our time and effort and you should never expect it just because you claim that you ‘really want to learn’.

Please learn some critical thinking skills. I know radfems say this all the time, but I really mean it. If not to understand radfems more, but to be critical of literally all the information that you absorb. I am tired of explaining to people that just because you don’t like or trust the source (like the Daily Mail) doesn’t mean that the actual story itself is untrue. Newspapers like this are incredibly bias and will publish stories which feed into their specific narrative, but it doesn’t mean that what they publish is actually false? Unless you can actually find a source which can tell me that whatever story I’m showing you never happened/was objectively false, I’m going to keep using it. A story which goes against your beliefs doesn’t make it a fake. Biases in newspapers come from the stories which they choose to publish (or not publish), the details they focus on, and the wording they use. My favourite example of this is a few years back when every newspaper was publishing articles about how the Labour and Tory proposed budgets were never going to work/actually balance because the assumptions they used weren’t right. The Daily Mail, however, published only that Labour’s proposed budget wasn’t going to work. Was the story correct? Yes. Did they purposefully leave out information which therefore gave a bias perspective of the two budgets? Absolutely. If you throw everything out which has any biases (which was a thing a TRA I argued with claimed you should do and said that was what they were taught to do), you would have to throw out literally everything ever written. Instead, it’s significantly better to be critical of what you read and understand what biases are in place and why.

#I will probably be adding to this list at some point #also interesting that when TRAs used to come and ate on my blog that my pinned post was often a target #make some stupid little hate comment about inclusive language #telling me that I am *inclusive language* so it’s factually correct/accurate #or telling me about the importance of inclusive language because OBVIOUSLY I just hate it because I don’t understand #but this #this they’re silent on #radical feminism #trans ignorance #gender critical #masterpost

1K notes · View notes

femalefern · 1 year

Text

After well over a decade on tumblr I guess it was time to make a terf sideblog, lol

I am a lesbian who was involved in the queer/trans community in my city for about a decade and entered into a serious (unfulfilling, primarily but not entirely sexless) long-term relationship with a trans woman (fully and blindly accepting that trans women are women, fully denying my own desires out of a need for love and acceptance). Years later, I am dealing with shame and regret now that I realize how much I let myself get brainwashed and robbed of my own sexuality. The person I dated wasn’t this evil manipulator, no one was forcing me to be there, but I still feel violated, still feel like I was deeply manipulated by a lot of the queer/trans stuff in my 20s that led me into this situation that I thankfully got myself out of. Even before I got out, I was growing skeptical of the cult-like way the queer groups ran my city (a fairly small but very liberal university town). I dared to speak up against a community organizer and was severely cancelled in 2014 before canceling was really a thing. My ex and I were both anti “sex work” and we ended up being harassed in the streets and had our apartment vandalized for helping someone avoid resorting to entering the industry. My relationship thankfully ended with Covid, but not before I had what I can only describe as a mental breakdown complete with my first manic episode that lost me my job, stability, and a lot of friends, and earned me several diagnoses. Luckily with Covid, I got away from any opportunity for in person social events and rediscovered fandom and non-queer lesbians online, which really saved me. Getting into the queer/trans community in my city was a mistake, there’s no other way to put it. As a teenager I didn’t have any great confusion about being a lesbian once I had my big realization, but a severe confusion developed as an adult. It was easy as a kid to figure out and somewhat easy to accept that I only liked women, and came out to various people when I was around 16. And then from like age 18 until Covid, I guess you could say I slowly but surely completely indoctrinated myself, completely and thoroughly went all in, with a lot of help from other people.

This started I guess with the university lesbians around me telling me they’re queer because gender isn’t binary, which in 2010 was a pretty foreign concept to me, and the underlying message was that queerness was the morally and intellectually superior sexuality to lesbianism (so of course I fairly quickly called myself queer too because if not it was clear I was dumb and didn’t Get It.)

Next came my attraction to and dating a (now identifying) trans man, who began testosterone at the end of the relationship and insisted that being attracted to him meant I wasn’t a lesbian at all, but that I had to be bi/pan, which I did accept with some passive agreement.

Finally, there was a trans woman, who knew and validated I was really a lesbian (as long as I returned that validation), and pursued me (somewhat aggressively) in a way no one had before. But I was seeking any sort of validation and acceptance by this point, since I dealt with a lot of rejection and abandonment, both friend and relationship wise in my 20s. Out of so much detachment and confusion and now deep depression, (I think I also considered myself asexual for a time, as well as nonbinary of course), I went with it. It was serious, we planned on having kids together some day, I was miserable by the end. But I was so comfortable in my misery that I wanted it to continue, afraid of change, until my mental breakdown blew everything up and this person had the sense to end it for me, and I am thankful for that.

It didn’t help that of all the lgbt people I know, I barely knew a single lesbian. Ultimately, bi people, gay men, and trans people will always greatly outnumber us. Not to mention I spent a huge amount of time studying this shit in grad school. A wasted education, lol (I am happily self employed now though, so it all works out.)

Today, for the first time in my almost 30 years, I am dating an actual lesbian, and it’s only with that and some distance from my past and all my processing that I can really understand how unhappy my life was and how detached I was from my sexuality.

Despite coming out as a teenager, I find myself resonating more with late bloomer lesbians who only find their happiness after years of denying themselves and focusing on men. I wish I could find people who went through the same experience as me because I am still processing my mistakes years later. I don't want judgement or sympathy but I wish I could talk about this with someone who gets it. Please feel free to reach out if any of these resonated with you.

tl;dr: lesbians DO get coerced into dating trans women, the queer/trans community fucked me up a bit (a lot), but i’m happier now

#radblr #radfem #radical feminism #idk what tags to use because it's not a strictly radfem issue but I feel like I am most likely to find people under those tags #gender critical

129 notes · View notes

redheadbigshoes · 6 months

Note

Sorry, I am not calling names, you can go to any "bi lesbian positivity" blog and find plenty.

That being said, the post that I tried to use as a block list was about how "lgbts are trying to persuade lesbians into fucking men" is a transmisogynistic dogwhistle.

Honestly, that's not very PC of me, but it feels like there is an actual war over this line. Some of the popular lesbian bloggers are all about "trans women are cool" and then go on talking about how transitioning is misogynistic, how badly they want to fuck trans men, organize hate campaigns on trans women and only on trans women (I saw one post accusing a trans girl of fetishizing black people, went to her blog, and turns out that she leaves sexual remarks on every fucking post. Not saying that it's cool, but it's definitely a different thing, and of course notes were full with transmisogyny) and so on.

And the entire circle of transmisogyny bloggers seems to embrace the idea that excluding men from lesbianism is a TERF thing. Like, they say that "of course it's lesbophobic to imply that lesbians are TERFs" and then proceed to talk only about cis lesbians being transphobic or "transphobic". I am already blocked by some popular ones probably for disagreeing with one "bi lesbian".

Yeah it do be like that. "Bi lesbians" are not yet a thing where I live, but a) they will be soon, b) it's still full of bullshit. I don't ever want to go into irl spaces

I don’t think I’m mentally stable enough to search for “bi lesbian positivity” blogs lol I’ve probably blocked most of them or am blocked by most of them anyways.

You know what’s ironic? That 99% of “bi lesbians” also believe in transandrophobia and usually don’t care at all about transfems. They’re obviously only using transmisogyny to attack lesbians somehow.

Seriously people need to start being more clever. A lot of people see terms that involve any prejudice and they instantly believe the person who’s talking about that. “Lesbians not being attracted to men is transphobic” and they genuinely believe that without questions. This is not only frustrating, but also sad. It’s ironic because the mindset of “I’ll fully believe something without any explanation or proof” is such a conservative thing to do…

You ask them to explain why they think what they think and suddenly they have no arguments, at least no logical ones.

I think those lesbian blogs you’re talking about are mostly not owned by lesbians. If they’re attracted to men they either aren’t lesbians or they don’t see trans men as men.

If you try asking any of those people about why they think it’s terf rhetoric to exclude men from lesbianism prepare yourself for either the most stupid shit you will ever see or for absolute silence lol

Most of the time whenever I comer across either terf blogs, “bi lesbian” blogs or any of those kind of people I usually just block them because it’s worthless wasting your time with someone who clearly doesn’t want to actually listen, they just want attention and by wasting your time with them you’re giving them exactly what they want.

That’s why I usually only block them and move on by still posting the things I like to talk about and fight against prejudice in other ways besides joining discourses.

#stephanie answers #anon #long post #‘bi lesbians’

17 notes · View notes

singularsoldier · 9 months

Text

One of my biggest complaints about lesbianism on this site is that I haven’t seen a remote whisper of similar discourse surrounding gay men.

Heads up, a lot of this is ranting/venting so im probably gonna repeat stuff or not make a ton of sense in some places:

Like, a man was married with kids before realizing he’s gay. Okay, cool. You’re still gay dude. A man dates a boygirl person. Still gay who cares. He thinks a female celebrity is stunning. Duh! Look at her! But the second a lesbian is inserted into those exact scenarios, its a race to micro label and argue over what she can call herself.

Previously married with kids, dating a boygirl, thinks a male celebrity is hot, all of these are used against the lesbian identity and can be boiled down to elementary “eww you have BOY cooties” which leads into terf territory. Its a rehash of gold star lesbianism and ultimately shames lesbians who were unsure of their identity or found themselves in comphet relationships for safety/lack of support. Hell, its shaming lesbians for even thinking a random person is objectively hot bc they ID as a man.

Moving on, a similar thing happens when someone who previously ID’d as gay/lesbian realizes they’re attracted to multiple genders. Even if its just romantic for one and sexual for the other, the gay person is ultimately seen as bisexual. No further questions. The lesbian? Once again, its a race to label and argue.

This is where “bi” lesbian loses me. I don’t see anyone calling gay men bi gays for being in those previous scenarios I listed. A bi guy who only dates women and sleeps with men is bi. End of story. Not a peep about being a bi gay. I have, however, seen multiple definitions of bi lesbianism that include those exact examples. A lesbian got exposed to BOY COOTIES so now they can’t call themself a lesbian.

Or, rather, a woman only likes men romantically but since she isn’t dropping her panties for him, she’s still a lesbian. Is she only bisexual if she has sex with men? What if she only dates girls and sleeps with guys? Does that make her a bi straight? Once again, the second a woman enters the equation, everything goes out the door and we have to argue about Person Who Doesn’t Have Sex With ____. Why is being bisexual regardless of how it presents a bad thing? I haven’t seen anyone give a solid reason other than “i dont wanna be bi” or parroting some kind of terf rhetoric.

Adding to that, in a lot of the discourse, it honestly feels like bigender/multigender people are being used as a gotcha. Like I said before, a gay guy dating a boygirl is just a gay guy dating a boygirl. A lesbian dating the same person? “They identify as a boy!!! You clearly like men!!” which, ultimately, ignores the full scope of that person’s identity. They aren’t just a boy in the same way they aren’t just a girl. I guarantee no one would jump down a gay guy’s throat and say “ummm ACTUALLY she says she’s a girl so she makes you not gay”.

The same gotcha issue comes about with trans people. It’s as if saying “I’m not attracted to men” equals not calling a trans woman a woman. I only ever see terf accusations float around when a lesbian makes that statement. Never when a gay guy says he isn’t attracted to women. If your first thought when hearing that is “well they MUST be talking about trans people” then you have a problem, and anyone who actually refuses to date someone bc they’re trans is the actual exclusionist.

Gay and lesbian have a region of gender identity that falls out of bounds. A lot of people do. Yet the level of discourse over everything I mentioned is drastically different between them. God forbid a lesbian say “oh I dated a gay once but realized I wasn’t attracted to men”. They’ll get called a terf, an exclusionist, and every name under the sun. If a gay guy said the same about a woman? Two notes and its gone.

#vent #rant #lesbian #lgbtqia #gay #lgbt discourse

12 notes · View notes

piqued-curiosity · 1 year

Note

“A lot of them, specifically the bisexuals, seem to think that everyone is bisexual and cannot wrap their mind around the idea of somebody being homosexual or heterosexual. They really do think they’re morally superior for seeing “hearts not parts” and are convinced that everyone else is bigoted for not experiencing attraction the way they do”

I don’t agree with this at all tbh and I think that the idea that bisexuals are the main perpetrators of this is completely overblown on radblr. You’ve basically just decided amongst yourselves that it must be bi people (with no proof) and haven’t thought critically at all about why this is happening, and why it’s only happening in one direction (towards gay people).

The one fundamental commonality of the trans movement is hypocrisy:

“Misgendering is violence and you shouldn’t even misgender rapists or murderers… but let’s call these evil terfs men to teach them a lesson”.

“People are attracted to gender and not sex, therefore a woman and a transwoman in a relationship is a lesbian relationship… but if you leave your spouse when they tell you they are transitioning you are transphobic and unsupportive, even if you are straight”.

“Lesbians should get over their genital preference and date me or they are transphobic… but I wouldn’t date another transwoman because it triggers my dysphoria”.

“Girldick is completely different from cis penis and they are nothing alike… but a strap on is exactly the same as a girldick (if you are a lesbian) or a cis penis (if you are a gay man)”.

Literally the entire ideology is just “whatever happens to suit me at this current moment is true, and I’ll say something contradictory in two minutes time when that suits me more”. These “trans lesbians” arguing that having a “genital preference” and not liking their dicks is transphobic are, in my experience, very very rarely bisexuals who like dick themselves. They are straight men who want lesbians to suck their dicks despite having no intention of ever interacting with one themselves. Same with “gay transmen”. They are straight girls!! Who argue tooth and nail that gay men can like pussy. They NEVER have any interest in pussy themselves.

Like legitimately, how often have you actually come across one of these straight girls trying to fuck gay men who would actually be interested in interacting sexually with a vagina herself? Or a straight man who wants to fuck lesbians who would actually be willing to take a dick? They are SO rare.

I don’t doubt that there are SOME bisexuals pushing this, statistically there must be. But the vast majority of it is selfish and homophobic straight people who expect gay people to get over themselves and fuck them but would never do the same themselves.

I also think that part of it is just not understanding homosexuality and refusing to try. These people are brought up to believe that the “right” way is dick + vagina, and seeing as they are oriented that way, don’t actually ever TRULY believe or understand that people can be fully attracted to the same sex and not secretly be ok with the opposite sex. To them, it’s a weird fetish but being straight is the default. They are no different from the men who think that deep down lesbians must want penis. Or that if they just tried it they would be ok with it. They say they understand being gay but they don’t truly GET it. They still think there must be some part of you that’s ok with the opposite sex, because that’s natural to them.

Here’s my last point for why it is verifiably straight people and not bisexuals who are pushing this: you NEVER see it going the other direction. You don’t see people fighting straight people, saying that straight women have to like trans men, and straight men have to like transwomen. I’m sure there’s a small percentage who argue this, but the vast majority of the “genital preference” shit is directed at gay people. If it were bisexuals doing this then they equally shouldn’t understand straight people having “genital preferences” and there should be just as much of an argument for them to get over their orientation. But there isn’t, because 99% of it is just straight people who are homophobes and don’t think being attracted to the same sex is legitimate, and want to fuck gay people.

Sure, it’s much easier to bully gay people than straight people, who are the majority. But the trans movement has SO much power. They’ve bullied whole governments into passing insane laws in their favour that trample all over women’s rights. These people do not have a problem with getting people to listen to them, and are not in danger of getting told to fuck off if they piss people off. It’s literally just entitled straight people thinking that nobody should be allowed to say no to sex with them. If it was bisexuals doing this they should be equal parts sexually harassing straight people, but they are not. It’s straight people feeling entitled to gay people.

There’s also the fact that the trans movement is so massive, it just statistically can’t be mostly bi people. It’s majority straight teenage girls following a trend (tifs) and middle aged straight men (autogynephile tims), and then some self-hating gays and bi people who transition. There aren’t ENOUGH bi people (or same-sex attracted people at all for that matter) to be filling this movement. Every fucking second boring straight girl on my Instagram is some flavour of trans, and my dating apps are like 70% ugly trans lesbians.

And that’s another nail in the coffin for this being bi people! These people TELL you they are straight! Literally the first thing they say is that they are a trans lesbian, or a gay trans man. They’re literally identifying as being attracted only to the opposite sex. If they were bi they would say they were bi, because in their universe same-sex attraction still trumps transness in terms of cool points.

Perhaps I didn’t word my point correctly. I agree that the ones who started this and push for it to be supported are straight. Aka the “trans lesbians” and “trans gays”.

But I’ve seen so many bisexuals support them on behalf of gay people. The “trans gays/lesbians” start the fire, and bisexuals add wood to it.

The bisexuals claiming they’re morally superior because they don’t care what genitals their partner has. The ones calling themselves gay/lesbian while going on about how much they love “boy pussy” and “girl dick” (and then trying to convince homosexuals we should feel the same). The ones giving gay people “advice” on how to get over their “genital preference”. The ones who are so baffled by the concept of homosexuality that they start claiming one must just be a perverted fetishist to be interested in one’s genitals. And so much more, I’ve seen it all. The role many bisexuals have taken in this debate is to validate the claims of homophobic heterosexuals.

Of course straight people aren’t affected by this, because all throughout history they’ve never been told their sexuality is wrong, and they’ve never been told they need to change. Gay people have. So we’re the easy target. The trans community and their allies did actually try to target straight people with this! Remember the “super straight” thing? There’s enough straight people that they were able to quickly shut this stuff down. Gay people are so little in number, and already being eaten up by this sort of rhetoric before it got reworded with trans language, that we got consumed.

I’ll repeat, I do agree that straight people started this, as it was the “trans gays/lesbians” who started demanding homosexuals be attracted to them. But just because they started it and are in charge of the narrative doesn’t mean that bisexuals didn’t/don’t have a role as well.

People wonder why lesbians go so hard in desperately trying to point out that role, and this is exactly why. Because we constantly get met with denial in regards to something we’ve experienced first hand.

#asks #anon

7 notes · View notes

max--phillips · 1 year

Note

You can distance yourself from “weird” pussy loving lesbians all you want, but at the end of the day you’re only pushing your kin under the bus, and one day the homophobes are going to turn on you too. It’s not enough to be “one of the good non-genital fetishising gays”. If you’re homosexual they hate you too. You can dislike the icky genital fetishising lesbians, but they’re still lesbians and they’ll have your back even if you won’t have theirs. Solidarity.

I….. girl what

I’m. Okay. Let’s break this one down

1) I’m literally a lesbian. Homophobes have already “turned against me.” They’ve never been turned towards me.

2) It is a radical, usually upsetting to cishet people thing to do to be attracted to women regardless of genitals. It reinforces the fact that trans women, regardless of medical transition status, are women. Homophobes and transphobes will invalidate my sexuality all day every day because I think trans women are hot. (Believe it or not, the same thing happens to cishet men who find trans women attractive, because they’re often accused of being gay or having a fetish. This far too often leads to transphobic violence.) So no, it’s not “good enough,” because it’s actually worse than insisting trans people aren’t their gender based on genitals. It goes against the status quo, which queerphobes are determined to enforce.

(2.5: it’s okay to have genital preferences, really. You just have to communicate that to them. “Hey, I really like you and I think you’re cool, but I wanted to let you know that if this goes in that direction, I absolutely see you as a woman, but I’m really only interested in women who have a vagina. Is that going to be okay?” Worst case scenario they’ll probably say “oh, no, sorry!” and idk, maybe you’ve made a new friend.)

3) You and your fellow terfs absolutely do not have my back, and to suggest so is honestly comical. Until you accept that trans women are women, you do not have my back. Until you believe nonbinary people, which I am, are valid, you do not have my back. Until you respect everyone’s pronouns and stop making comments about how ridiculous they are, you do not have my back. Until you stop licking the boots of the cishet patriarchy by insisting gender and sex are binary and permanently whatever you were assigned at birth, you do not have my back. Do you know how many terfs have misgendered me and called me confused? Do you know how many have harassed me and people I love? Did they have my back, as you suggest?

4) You misunderstand what I want for the world. I want every person, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, to be able to express themselves safely and free of harassment, be able to hold hands in the street without wondering if they’ll face violence, for all lesbians to feel welcome in the community regardless of agab, for all gay men to feel welcome in the community regardless of agab. I want standards for what is and isn’t masculine or feminine or beautiful or attractive or desirable to not be based on racist standards that ostracize and further oppress POC. And I want that for everyone, regardless of where they started. I’m not pushing anyone under the bus by wanting that.

Calling out transphobia also isn’t pushing anyone under the bus. You act as though it is, but really it’s just someone on the sidewalk telling you a bus is coming. You have an opportunity to get the fuck out of the way. The folks on the sidewalk might not embrace you with open arms at first, but they’ll still be glad you’re safe. But if you tell them to fuck off and stare it down, it’s your own fault when you get hit.

#tori answers questions #max answers questions #anonymous

3 notes · View notes

drawscripturestories · 11 months

Text

My feelings on LGBTQ+

Sometimes I feel like I just need to vent my beliefs into the void, just so that people know what I'm feeling.

Today I want people to know what I'm feeling about LGBTQ+ stuff. My church's official stance is that there oughta be no sexual relations before marriage, and marriage is between a man and a woman. My church also maintains that there are two genders, regardless of what biology may say; it's a thing that was determined before we were born and will continue to be so long after we're dead.

And yes, I trust my church. Faith is a difficult thing to hold onto when everyone you see on the internet is telling you it's wrong, but I've just about managed to maintain it.

Of course, maybe before going further I ought to say what this does NOT mean:

This does not mean I hate everyone who identifies as Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Trans, or whatever other words you may prefer to use. These people deserve the basic human rights to live in a society that loves and tolerates them in the same way that all human beings ought to love each other. The second-greatest commandment in the bible is "love your neighbor", after all; second only to loving God, who also loves everyone, by the way.

This does not mean that I believe that Men should not be sensitive, caring, concerned with their appearance, or any other thing that is traditionally associated with the female gender, or vice versa. There is a big difference between the roles God intended for men and women and the human traditions that have built up around those roles since the beginning of time.

BUT this does not, in turn, mean that I want to let you all do LGBTQ+ stuff. I won't hate you for it, but... I know that sexual relationships outside marriage between a man and a woman can only lead to misery; in this life or the next; and I want to tell you all so bad, but... I'm afraid I'll only be met with terms like "TERF" and "Transphobe". Look at JK Rowling, for example. Can anyone here actually tell me what exactly she has said that has made her the sworn enemy of the LGBTQ+ community?

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth. The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

She continued, “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.”

That last paragraph scares me because she practically outright said that she would support trans rights and the people of the internet still hate her.

JK Rowling never said she hated Trans people. She wasn't funding any hate groups, she just expressed her belief, like I'm doing, and the LGBTQ+ community wants to destroy her for it.

That's why I'm terrified to put this post out there.

But one of the virtues I chose to write on Gad's sword was "Truth", because that is more important than popularity. If I can't be honest with you all, then it's as good as standing by and letting a blind man walk off a cliff.

From my perspective, anyway. Form yours, I might be the conspiracy theorist connecting unrelated threads in his basement, or the old guy shouting "the end is nigh" at the street corner.

By all means, call someone out for outright abusing LGBTQ+ people, or for slinging hateful slurs or doing anything un-christlike. Just also be aware that some of us are just seeing you guys walking toward a cliff, real or imagined, and we want to warn you before you fall off and hit rock bottom.

0 notes

baeddel · 3 years

Note

Please. Please can you tell me what a baeddel is and why people (terfs?) used it in a derogatory manner on this website for a hot minute but now no one ever uses it at all

you asked for it, fucker

[2k words; philology and drama]

baeddel is an Old English word. i have no idea where it actually occurs in the Old English written corpus, but it occurs in a few placenames. its diminuitive form, baedling, is much better documented. it appears in the (untranslated) Canons of Theodore, a penitential handbook, a sort of guidebook for priests offering advice on what penances should be recommended for which sins. in a passage devoted to sexual transgressions it gives the penances suggested for a man who sleeps with a woman, a man who sleeps with another man, and then a man who sleeps with a baedling. so you have this construction of a baedling as something other than a man or a woman. and then it gives the penance for a baedling who sleeps with another baedling (a ludicrous one-year fast). then, by way of an explaination, Theodore delivers us one of the most enigmatic phrases in the Old English corpus: "for she is soft, like an adulturess."

the -ling suffix in baedling is masculine. but Theodore uses feminine pronouns and suffixes to describe baedlings. as we said, it's also used separately from male and female. but it's also used separately from their words for intersex and it never appears in this context. all of this means that you have this word that denotes a subject who is, as Christopher Monk put it, "of problematic gender." interested historians have typically interpreted it as referring to some category of homosexual male, such as Wayne R. Dines in his two-volume Encyclopedia of Homosexuality who discusses it in the context of an Old English glossary which works a bit like an Old English-Latin dictionary, giving Old English words and their Latin counterparts. the Latin words the Anglo-Saxon lexicographer chose to correspond with baedling were effeminatus and mollis, and Lang concludes that it refers to an "effeminate homosexual" (pg 60, Anglo Saxon). this same glossary gives as an Old English synonym the word waepenwifstere which literally means "woman with a penis," and which Dines gives the approximate translation (hold on tight) male wife.

R. D. Fulk, a philologist and medievalist, made a separate analysis of the term in his study on the Canons of Theodore 'Male Homoeroticism in the Old English Canons of Theodore', collected in Sex and Sexuality in Medieval England, 2004. he analysed it as a 'sexual category' (sexual as in sexuality), owing to the context of sexual transgressions in the Canons. he decides that it refers to a man who bottoms in sexual relationships with another man. i don't have the article on hand so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but this seems obviously inadequate given what we know from the glossary described by Dines. Latin has a word for bottom, pathica, and the lexicographer did not use this in their translation, preferring words that emphasized the baedling's femininity like effeminatus, and doesn't address the sexual context at all. Dines, however, only reading this glossary, seems to decide that it refers to a type of male homosexual too hastily, considering the Canons explicitly treat them separately. both Dines and Fulk immediately reduce the baedling to a subcategory of homosexual when neither of the sources to hand actually do so themselves.

by now it should be obvious why, seven or so years ago, we interpreted it as an equivalent to trans woman. I mean come on - a woman with a penis! these days I tend to add a bit of a caution to this understanding, which is that trans woman is the translation of baedling which seems most adequate to us, just as baedling was the translation of effeminatus that seemed most adequate to our lexicographer. but the term cannot translate perfectly; its sense was derived from some minimal context; a legal context, a doctrinal context, and so forth... the way Anglo-Saxons understood sex/gender is complicated but it has been argued that they had a 'one sex model' and didn't regard men and women as biologically separate types, which is obviously quite different from the sexual model accepted today; in any case they didn't have access to the karyotype and so on. the basic categories they used to understand gender and sexuality were different from ours. in particular, Hirschfield et al. should be understood as a particularly revolutionary moment in the genealogy of transsexuality; the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft essentially invented the concept of the 'sex change', the 'transition', conceived as a biological passage from one sex to the other. even in other contexts where (forgive me) #girlslikeus changed their bodies in some way, like the castration of the priestesses of Cybele, or those belonging to the various historical societies which we believe used premarin for feminization [disputed; see this post], there is no record that they were ever considered men at any stage or had some kind of male biology that preceded their 'gender identity.' the concept of the trans woman requires the minimal context of the coercive assignment at birth and its subsequent (civil and bio-technological) rejection. i have never encountered evidence that this has ever been true in any previous society. nonetheless, these societies still had gendered relations, and essentially wherever we find these gendered relations we also find some subject which is omitted or for whom it has been necessary to note exceptions. what is of chief interest to us is not so much that there was such a subject here or there in history (and whatever propagandistic uses this fact might have), but understanding why these regularities exist.

a very parsimonious explanation is that gender is a biological reality, and there is some particular biological subject which a whole host of words have been conjured to denote. if this were the case then we would expect that, no matter what gender/sexual system we encounter in a given society, it will inevitably find some linguistic expression. if, like me, you find this idea revolting, then you should busy yourself trying to come up with an alternative explanation which is not just plausible, but more plausible. my best guesses are outside the scope of this answer...

anyway, all of this must be very interesting to the five or six people invested in the confluence of philology and gender studies. but why on earth did it become so widely used, in so many strange and unusual contexts, in the 2010s? we're very sorry, but yes, it's our fault. you see apart from all of this, there is also a little piece of information which goes along with the word baeddel, which is that it's the root of the Modern English word bad. by way of, no less, the word baedan, 'to defile'. how this defiled historical subject came to bear responsibility for everything bad to English-speakers doesn't seem to be known from linguistic evidence. however, it makes for a very pithy little remark on transmisogyny. my dear friend [REDACTED] made a playful little post making this point and, good Lord, had we only known...

it went like this. its such a funny little idea that we all start changing our urls to include the word baeddel. in those days it was common to make puns with your url (we always did halloween and christmas ones); i was baeddelaire, a play on the French poet Baudelaire. while we all still had these urls a series of events which everyone would like to forget happened, and we became Enemies of Everyone in the Whole World. because of the url thing people started to call us "the baeddels." then there was "a cult" called "the baeddels" and so forth. this cult had various infamies attatched to it and a constellation of indefensible political positions. ultimately we faced a metric fucking shit ton of harassment, including, for some of my friends, really serious and bad irl harassment that had long-term bad awful consequences relating to stable housing and physical safety and i basically never want to talk about that part of my life ever again. and i never have to, because i've come to realize that for most people, when they use the word baeddel, they don't know about that stuff. it doesn't mean that anymore.

so what does it mean? you'll see it in a few contexts. TERFs do use it, as you guessed. i am not quite sure what they really mean by it and how it differs from other TERF barbs. i think being a baeddel invovles being politically active or at least having a political consciousness, but in a way thats distinct from just any 'TRA' or trans activist. so perhaps 'militant' trans women, but perhaps also just any trans woman with any opinions at all. how this was transmitted from tumblr/west coast tranny drama to TERF vocabulary i have no idea. but you will also find - or, could have found a few years ago - i would say 'copycat' groups who didn't know us or what we believed but heard the rumours, and established their own (generously) organizations (usually facebook groups) dedicated to putting those principles into practice. they considered themselves trans lesbian separatists and did things like doxx and harass trans women who dated cafabs. if you don't know about this, yes, there really were such groups. they mostly collapsed and disappeared because they were evildoers who based their ideology on a caricature. i knew a black trans woman who was treated very badly by one of these groups, for predictable reasons. so long-time readers: if you see people talking about their bad experiences with 'baeddels', you can't necessarily relate it to the 2014 context and assume they're carrying around old baggage. there are other dreams in the nightmare.

the most common way you'll see it today, in my experience, is in this form: people will say that it was a "slur" for trans women. they might bring up that it's the root of the word bad, and they might even think that you shouldn't use the word bad because of it, or that you shouldn't use the word baeddel because it's a slur. all of this is a silly game of internet telephone and not worth addressing. except to say that it's by no means clear that baeddel, or baedling, were slurs, or even insulting at all. while Theodore doesn't provide us with a description of how we can have sex with a baedling without sinning, and it may be the case that any sexual relations with a baedling was considered sinful, sexuality-based transgressions were not taken all that seriously in those days. there was a period where homosexuality within the Church was almost sanctioned, and it wasn't until much later that homosexuality became so harshly proscribed, to the extent that it was thought to represent a threat to society, etc. and as i mentioned, there are places in England named after baedlings. there is a little parish near Kent which is called Badlesmere, Baeddel's Lake, which was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book (as having a lord, a handful of villagers and a few slaves; perhaps only one or two households). it's not unheard of, but i just don't know very many places called Faggot Town or some such. it's possible that baedlings had some role in Anglo-Saxon society which we are not aware of; it could even have been a prestigious one, as it was in other societies. there is just no evidence other than a couple of passing references in the literature and we'll probably never have a complete picture.

2K notes · View notes

cuntess-carmilla · 3 years

Text

@ People who’re not lesbians and want a better understanding of lesbophobia in order to extend better solidarity towards us:

The first thing you have to internalize, is that the most recurrent themes behind lesbophobia are patterns of humiliation, punishment and denying us vulnerability.

The “mean” (arrogant and cruel) lesbian, and why lesbians must be “humbled down” (humiliated):

We’re perceived as offensively arrogant because under the patriarchy, women are supposed to be inferior to men, and men are supposed to be superior. One of the key roles of patriarchal manhood is to desire women exclusively.

By taking on a role that’s supposedly only reserved for men, we provoke people to think “Who do they think they are? Do they think they’re equal to men? Or BETTER than men?“

Us not “giving men a chance” is seen as a cruel act, too. Even though straight men not giving men a chance, and straight women not giving women a chance, is them just knowing what they do or don’t want.

Because of our perceived cruelty and arrogance, we need to be humiliated back down into our proper place within womanhood.

There’s a reason why men tell us they’re going to make us “real women”, when threatening us from a distance, as well as when correctively raping or beating us. When it reaches a point in which they see us as incorrigible through humiliation, they kill us.

Projecting aggression on us, which must be punished:

Even other people who’re not cishets see everything we do or don’t do as violent, abrasive or aggressive. We’re seen as raging beasts.

Expressing my unattraction to men in public has been treated as me shaming people who are attracted to them (an attack), or as an attempt to hurt all men. It has been deemed homophobic or biphobic, too. No matter how careful I’ve been to not hurt other people’s sensitivities.

Don’t get me started on me not liking men on itself earning me being called a TERF no matter how clear I make it that I’m inclusive of trans women and the fact that I’m nb. This happens to trans lesbians ALL the time too.

Our mere existence is seen as an act of violence, as a threat, and our violent crime must be met with punishment, which can fall anywhere between isolating us, up to meeting us with violence.

The emotionless, yet hysterical lesbian:

Since we’re violent beasts, we’re seen as emotionless. Since we’re unemotional, we’re unbreakable, which means that no violence we face is punishment enough. In consequence, when we’re subjected to violence, it’s minimized. Since it’s minimized, if we complain about it, we’re exaggerating. We’re being hysterical.

We aren’t vulnerable human beings with emotions in other people’s eyes. The only emotion people allow us is anger, and only because they can use it against us.

We don’t need protection, we don’t hurt, so it’s fine to stomp on us, and if we complain, we’re exaggerating. Actually, we’re the ones being mean to whoever hurt us, by making that person feel guilty for a non-issue.

We ESPECIALLY don’t need help, much less to be rescued!

By being lesbians, in other people’s eyes, we’re making the statement to the world that even IF we were to not be completely unbreakable or unfeeling, we still don’t want to be rescued, we don’t want help. We did this to ourselves, in other people’s eyes.

When you see a lesbian saying or doing anything and start to feel indignation, to feel attacked, to feel threatened, to perceive them as aggressive, cruel or hysterical, ask yourself:

Is this lesbian being genuinely offensive, aggressive, cruel or hysterical, or is it ME who has lesbophobic bias I haven’t unlearned yet?

Is this lesbian actually exaggerating, or is it me who sees lesbians as unfeeling and unbreakable, so they shouldn’t be so upset anyway? Because if you stab a lesbian they won’t bleed.

#⚢#lesbophobia tw #corrective rape tw #lesbophobic violence tw

874 notes · View notes

equalitymattersallaround · 2 years

Photo

So I took a screenshot of this ask instead of just answering the actual ask because I wanted to block this anon & I couldn’t do that AND answer the question. Here’s my actual answer below.

I am fully within my rights to block whomever I want whenever I want. I will not take grief for that. Especially because I clearly didn't block you, the oh so brave person who's giving me a hard time on anon, as you can send me this message. I block bigots for this exact reason: I don't want to deal with their nonsense after calling them out.

I know the odds of changing a bigot's mind are less than 1%. The reason I comment is not to start a conversation with you. It is in the hopes that someone hurt by your bigotry will see that someone is on their side. And maybe people on the fence about trans issues will see what I have to say and think, "Oh, that makes sense." And it is in that spirit that I will now address your frothing hatred & block you. I have no desire to speak with you ever again, but I hope someone will see what I say and either feel seen or have a new understanding of the situation.

Gender ideology is not oppression but freedom (or at least it is to those who use it). Trans & gender nonconforming folks who lean into the idea of gender do it because it's a language & understanding that allows them to be who they are. It's not a cage or a form of oppression it's (& I know I'm repeating myself here, but there's no better word for it) freedom. Freedom from the limitations and oppression society put on us based on what they saw between our legs (not to mention what's ACTUALLY in between our legs, as I'm sure intersex people can speak up on).

Do you want to know what a woman is? A woman is anyone who feels seen & represented in the word woman. And I know that's one of those circular answers you hate so much but it's better than what TERFs usually say, which is usually inherently racist. I'm mostly pulling from this post as a source on my next point (for those interested in reading more), but TERFs assume the western ideology of "genitals = gender" is the only valid one out there, completely ignoring things like Two-Spirit folks and Hijra. The typical TERF definition of womanhood is also heavily based on white women's experience, leaving many cisgender women of color out in the cold. We saw that at the Olympics this year when a cisgender woman of color with higher testosterone was banned from competing. So I know my answer to, "What a woman is," is better than yours.

I'm already getting tired but what's next? Sexual orientation? Geez, you do spiral into transphobic nonsense as this goes on, don't you? Sexual orientation is another thing where whatever sexuality you define yourself as should be freeing not limiting. At the end of the day, it's more about just who each person is attracted to not, "YOU MUST STICK TO THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF THIS SEXUALITY EXACTLY." You don't HAVE to be attracted to women with penises, no one is saying you have to be attracted to women with penises and honestly women with penises are not attracted to you so don't think so highly of yourself. Here's the problem though.

"I'm sapphic and I'm not attracted to women with penises." That's fine.  That’s the same as not being attracted to women with small noses or big feet, it’s just a physical characteristic.

"I'm sapphic and I'm not attracted to women with penises because they're men." You're a bigot.

I don't even know what you mean by, "and in that case which one is it? are humans the only species with sexual orientations or do other animals have gender" There are a lot of things humans have that most animals don't that are still real even though we made it up. Like money and language.

Most of the rest of what you say - "It's the fact that yall call sexual orientation a genital fetish and something we have to unlearn," and, "It's the fact that there are receipts of trans women sending death and rape threats to lesbians," - can be addressed by the fact that the internet is a wide & sprawling place. You can find awful, horrible people in any marginalized community. But using their behavior as an excuse to demonize an entire group is bigotry. It's like saying all women are anti-queer racist conservatives because of people like Anita Bryant, Phyllis Schlafly, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. And it's not okay to send death or rape threats to anyone, so if you could please tell your fellow TERFs to stop sending them to EVERY TRANS PERSON I KNOW that would be amazing. Since it's such an important issue for you.

Let's rapid-fire these next ones, shall we? If you want a space that only allows cisgender women in, that's weird but ok. The problem here again is that what you say is, "This is a place for females and you're a man because you have a penis." And since sex has nothing to do with gender, why do you care so much about a person's genitals? Honestly, TERFs are obsessed with monitoring people's private parts as much as Republicans.

To your point on Transandrophobia, all words are invented as their use is required and all communities have issues of internalized bigotry. You are an example of that bigotry since you & I are both a part of the larger queer community but you seek to oppress trans people. But again, defining a marginalized group by its worst minority is more a reflection on you than it is of that community.

Is that everything? I think that's everything. Good because that was exhausting.

#Transgender #Trans Rights #Trans Women are Women #Queer #LGBTQ Community #Transgender Community #LGBTQ+ Community #Anti TERF #Bigotry

28 notes · View notes

bisexualsdeservebetter · 3 years

Note

i looked on lgbta wiki to discern what the hell that person could possibly mean by “male lesbian” and i think i lost braincells reading their lesbian page but my best guess is that they’re talking about non-binary men and/or trans men. apparently, according to lgbta wiki (which is a very reliable source, as we can tell due to the completely objective way they present their articles /s), lesbianism means attraction to all genders except for binary men, except bi lesbians and straightsbians are totally valid and totally still lesbians even though they’re literally attracted to binary men i guess?? and then all of the “everyone except for binary men” stuff goes out the window because trans men can be lesbians if they feel a connection to lesbianism or they used to identify as lesbians before they realised they were men or whatever the fuck. and then there’s this whole thing where it goes “a common form of transandrophobia includes saying that trans men are just ‘confused lesbians’ because all lesbians feel some level of detachment from their gender” and it might just be me but it really feels like there’s an implied but we’re not like that! because for some reason they feel the need to constantly point out that trans men are still 100% real men and identifying as lesbians doesn’t make them less of one?? like hot take people who believe trans men are really men don’t feel the need to constantly affirm that they think trans men are men. and the comments are even worse! nobody questions anything even though it’s all complete nonsense, and i’m pretty sure anyone who actually dares to say that it’s complete nonsense just gets deleted. they even locked the page so only admins could edit it because apparently there were problems with people getting upset about the definitions (shocker) and changing it. someone even said “Before you get angry about this accurate information presented in this article, take some time to self reflect and realize that maybe you were wrong.” because yup, people (lesbians, mostly, but you can’t just say you’re talking about lesbians because that will get you rightly called out) are totally upset about this because they’re evil exclusionists who hate change and not because the notion that lesbians be attracted to men and/or be men is super lesphobic and harmful to them. like… they’ve turned lesbianism into a fun little label that literally everyone can identify as except for cis binary men and anyone who isn’t attracted to women/non-binary people regardless of alignment (even though the whole “you can be attracted to non-binary people in the same way someone can be attracted to men/women” is bs anyways but that’s not how these people see it), which completely defeats the point of lesbianism as a functional identity. thankfully this is just a loud minority, but holy shit they hate lesbians so much it’s wild.

There's not a lot I can add to this. Inclusionists love to erase and demonize lesbians, it's their favorite hobby. I'd like to point out I also see q*eer as a label being pushed on lesbians more than gay men. I have seen it with gay men too, but it seems to be mostly lesbians. A woman can literally flat out say she is a LESBIAN in no uncertain terms and inclus will still crawl out of the woodwork to call her a "q*eer woman". Like inclus are So Fucking Dedicated to either watering down lesbianism until it's a cute little label anybody can claim if they want to, regardless of if they're even women or if they're even attracted to women, or demonize lesbians to the point where they make it seem like all lesbians are mean evil TERFs.

I will never forget a post I saw a screenshot of some time ago that was aces claiming they have more right to the D slur than lesbians do, because the slur targets women who are sexually unavailable to men, and according to inclu logic, an ace is more sexually unavailable to men than a lesbian is. Despite the million different stupid fucking variations of asexual, including 'sex positive aces'. Like they genuinely believe a homosexual woman is undeserving of reclaiming the slur that is primarily directed at homosexual women because she... Experiences attraction. Every time I think I have seen the dumbest shit imaginable from inclus, they seem to take it as a personal challenge and make up something worse.

Also, fuck the LGBTA wiki, they're so blatanly homophobic, biphobic and transphobic all the fucking time over there, I lose brain cells every time I see a screenshot of that dumpster fire.

#lesbophobia #anti bi lesbian #anti mspec lesbian #homophobia #exclusionist

114 notes · View notes

vampish-glamour · 3 years

Note

Can you explain “bi lesbian” thing to me? I know it has something to do with SAM but idk anything else

Of course! Just know I completely hate the term lol. But I doubt you’re here for “uwu here’s some education, bi lesbians are valid!” anyways.

From what I understand, there’s a bunch of different meanings from different groups. I hate them all.

1.) Bi women who prefer women

I’m pretty sure this is a possible definition. I’ve heard people saying that if a bisexual woman has a strong preference for women, she can call herself a lesbian.

This one’s biphobic, because it suggests that 50/50 attraction is True Bisexuality, and anything else needs to have a separate label. It also defines bisexuals based on their preference (which not all bisexuals have ofc) and not based on their bisexuality alone.

It’s also homophobic because it erases the meaning of lesbian by applying it to anybody who isn’t a woman exclusively attracted to women. Most importantly, It suggests that if somebody calls herself a lesbian, she might actually be bisexual with a preference, and therefore men still have a chance with her.

2.) The Split Attraction Model (SAM)

I hate the SAM, and this is part of the reason why.

According to the SAM, romantic and sexual attraction are separate. So somebody could be homosexual—sexually attracted to the same sex, but also biromantic—romantically attracted to both sexes. Or vice versa. I strongly believe this is just internalized homophobia and biphobia gone unchecked and encouraged to remain unchecked. (Also it sexualizes the labels, which is a problem homosexuality and bisexuality already have and don’t need worsened)

So, like people call themselves a “gay ace” because they’re “homoromantic” asexual, people call themselves a “bi lesbian”. Meaning that they’re either bisexual “homoromantic” or homosexual “biromantic”.

These people are most likely bisexual with internalized biphobia that makes them want to claim the lesbian label to water down and not come to terms with their bisexuality, or are lesbian with internalized homophobia that makes them want to believe they’re attracted to men in some way.

3.) Lesbians who date and/or sleep with trans women.

This one is a TERF term. As in, trans exclusionary radical feminist. I don’t think anybody would actually call themselves a bi lesbian to communicate this, as it’s mostly an insult TERFS throw at lesbians who date/sleep with with trans women. Then again, considering pansexuality started out as “will date trans people”, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are people out there who call themselves bisexual lesbians because they’ll date trans women. I just haven’t seen it to the extent I’ve seen the last two.

TERFS believe trans women are men, so they believe that no lesbian would be able to be attracted to a trans woman. Therefore, they say that any lesbian who knowingly dates/sleeps with trans women is a “bisexual lesbian”.

Transphobic for obvious reasons, which is why it’s so surprising to me to see “bi lesbian” being treated as an actual label when it’s a very common term in TERF circles.

I do think there’s some credibility in the idea that a lesbian probably wouldn’t want to sleep with a pre-op trans woman, and if she genuinely finds herself attracted to male anatomy she’s probably bisexual. That doesn’t mean she’s a bi lesbian, though. It means she could be bisexual.

I hope that explains things! I’m no expert on this, I’m going from personal experience and what I’ve seen. So I might’ve missed something.

#asks #anon

43 notes · View notes

xclusivetism · 3 years

Text

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot.

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow.

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth.

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness.

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy.

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression.

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough.

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others.

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing.

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet.

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them.

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

#gender #gender identity #gender noncomformity #gender critical #lgbt #liberal #liberal feminism #feminism #women's rights #trans exclusionary radical feminist #radical feminism #society #gender roles #patriarchy

21 notes · View notes