#conservative gay men post gay liberation

[hadesoftheladies]

queer theory is actually a nightmarish frankensteinian creation of postmodernism, and post-modernists philosophers have frequently and explicitly been pro-pedophilia, because this is a logical consequence of what post-modernism says is true: there is no (epistemic) certainty or stable meaning.

when my conservative parents tell me they basically associate "lgbtq" with "maps" and pedophilia, they have reason to do so, given how "queer culture" is fundamentally a creation of post-modernist values, and post-modernist estimations of sexuality. everything is fluid, no binary exists, no meaning is fixed, so there are no defining lines, which means lines cannot actually be crossed. homosexuals can be bisexual, man and woman are interchangeable meaningless terms, and attraction to children is just one of the many ways sexual fluidity is expressed in humans, a benign and normal thing that should be released from modernist moralistic confines

that is queer philosophy, and it is actual queer culture. so not only are LGB folk being told they should celebrate the reclamation of an awful slur that explicitly others them as "perverted" and "strange", but now they are told to embrace queer culture (which means queer identity and philosophy) which not only declares their reality as abnormal and unreal (same-sex attraction is myth, since there is no such thing as sex and attraction is fluid), but also defines them explicitly with sexual perversions like pedophilia and bdsm: which IS EXACTLY WHAT HOMOPHOBES BELIEVE ABOUT THEM.

when queer culture is predicated on subjective feelings of identity needing to be validated, celebrated and "set free" from modernist (read definable, material and epistemological) structures, then the distaste for MAPs from queer folk doesn't mean anything, because even if MAPs are publicly rejected by queer culture, they are embraced and validated by queer theory and post-modernist philosophy.

what is doubly baffling to me is how the lgbtq+ community has tainted a movement for gay rights, you know, people who are being killed and ostracized for being same-sex attracted. not only nullifying their experiences and struggle in being same-sex attracted, not only associating their neutral, normal orientations with perversions and kinks, making something neutral political . . .

but they have also actively decentered a movement for homosexuals and bisexuals in order to accommodate identities that have NOTHING to do with that struggle or fight. intersex conditions, gender dysphoria, and asexuality have nothing to do with the oppression LGBs have faced for their sexual orientation and gender nonconformity, their culture of genderlessness. the idea that men and women can wear and present however they want, love and be attracted to the same sex, without it altering their material status.

EVEN MORE INFURIATINGLY, queer politics has offered almost ZERO challenges to patriarchy. by throwing out definitions, throwing out distinctions, it has relegated the essence of oppression to an individualistic, liberal fantasy that is powerless to change the system, and so can only grant us "spicy" patriarchy. dominance and submission, patriarchal inventions, are now cool kinks that every couple should try. gender is now open access (but still necessary), so men can wear heels and still call women slurs and violently harass them. transmen can go by he/him and still be refused abortion access! gay people are gender fetishists, not sinners. nothing has structurally changed, it's just we have cool names now! :)

so now LGB and women all over the fucking world are relegated to this homophobic misogynistic hell whether we turn to the left or right, and when we speak up about it, conservative homophobes and misogynists confuse us with liberal perverts, and liberal homophobes and misogynists conflate us with conservative sadists.

the structure doesn't change. there is no actual progress. like, same-sex right and women's movements all over the world have suffered for this. because white liberal westerners wanted to play around with words and have that count as activism.

i fucking hate queer theory and politics. i fucking hate how rich western whites shit on every human rights movement while capitalizing on them.

#queer theory #feminism #radblr #lgbtq #queer

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

This is Yonatan Shimriz. He's the brother of Alon, one of the 3 Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas, and accidentally killed by the IDF due to mistakenly thinking they're terrorists. Yonatan also survived with his family the massacre of Oct 7. And he just had a baby boy. Life WILL win, despite those who think they have the right to take it away.

It's been announced today that Israel has hired Prof. Malcolm Shaw, a Jewish British law professor, who specializes in the field of human rights and territorial disputes, to represent it at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. He's one of 4 lawyers that will represent Israel.

If I hadn't verified this is true through several news sources, I would not have believed this scenario. Terrorists fired an RPG at an IDF helicopter in Gaza, missed it, and ended up hitting a medical clinic in kibbutz Nirim, inside Israel, though as you might imagine, it's very close to the border. This is what the clinic looks like after the hit:

Lebanon has filed a complaint with the UN Security Council, blaming Israel for killing Saleh al-Arouri on its territory. Because harboring a senior Hamas terrorist, responsible for the murders of countless Israeli civilians, is not an issue, apparently. Lebanon charges that this is the biggest escalation between it and Israel since 2006 (the Second Lebanon War). They have no issue with Lebanon violating UN resolution 1701, which put an end to that war, conditioned on Hezbollah not being present anywhere between the Litani river and Lebanon's border with Israel (of course Hezbollah has been, and has been firing rockets at Israel from this area). Then again, the UN has done nothing to enforce that part of resolution 1701, so I guess if they don't care, why should the terrorists?

After I posted yesterday that the most likely scenario for who caused the blasts in Iran that killed 84 people is ISIS, the terrorist organization did take responsibility for the terrorist attack. Guess who Iran is still blaming for the attack, and swearing revenge against? The Jewish state. This is what antisemitism looks like. Well. It's one of its many looks.

On a different note, I wanted to see what the American media said about Claudine Gay's resignation, and I was horrified to hear that it's all painted in terms of liberals vs conservatives. Here's the thing, that may be completely true, but I just don't care. Antisemitism is a real issue, and the way the resignation is talked about, it's like the safety of Jewish students is nothing. Antisemitism is just a tool, and sometimes one political camp uses it against its rival, while at other times, that happens in the opposite direction. But it's like Jews are not even a part of the conversation. IDK, maybe it's because I'm an outsider, but the way Jews don't seem to matter even when antisemitism is supposedly finally being discussed, is truly startling. I'm in the middle of an active war zone, and I'm honestly sat here, worried for Jews abroad.

After a lot of work to gather information about their fate, the last 3 Israeli men missing since Oct 7 are now defined as hostages, which brings the total number of those kidnapped to 136, including bodies, and Israelis kidnapped before the massacre (2 living men and 2 bodies). There's one more missing Israeli woman, whose fate is still to be determined. We're 3 months into this nightmare, and there are still so many question marks. Even with those defined as murdered or kidnapped at a certain point, we've seen that sometimes there's new info, which changes what we believe happened to them.

And here's an example for the latter. This is 38 years old Tamir Adar.

Until yesterday, he was believed to be held hostage in Gaza. As new information was gathered, it was determined that he had been murdered on Oct 7. Tamir is the grandson of Holocaust survivor Yafa Adar, who was herself kidnapped, and released in the hostage deal. His body is still being held by the terrorists. Yafa herself was filmed as she was being taken to Gaza, holding her head up, and not crying. In an interview she gave after her release, she said that she refused to cry, because she wanted her family to be proud of her if they saw the footage. She also said that she's still not free, because her grandson is still in Gaza. I can't imagine what Yafa and her family feel after the news about Tamir's fate. May his memory be a blessing.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

#israel #israeli #israel news #israel under attack #israel under fire #israelunderattack #terrorism #anti terrorism #antisemitism #hamas #antisemitic #antisemites #jews #jew #judaism #jumblr #frumblr #jewish

[lesbiskammerat]

Hi! I saw a post about you talking about the understanding of gender as socially constructed from a communist point of view. I would be interested to see yours and also if you have some reading recommendations 😊

Oh god I have to actually articulate something clear myself? And thus open myself up to legitimate and informed criticism? I'll do my best.

One of the main point of disagreement I have with other people who agree that gender is a social construct is whether it's "transhistorical," as in whether this construct (and that of patriarchy) is essentially the same across different periods of history. Some radical feminists and those deriving their ideas from them will often say that it is (although others are not social constructionists at all), but you find it in other tendencies as well. I don't think it's really the case. You can look at various past societies and see that they are made up of men and women (or at least that they use words for themselves that we translate to "men and women,") with the men having a position of power over the women. They're very comparable, but ultimately the actual details of how those systems of gender operate are very different from the modern one found in global capitalism, in a way that I think disqualifies them from being essentially the same. An obvious example would be all the memes you might have seen about how ancient Greek men would have sex with each other, as well as their conventions on the roles of penetrating vs being penetrated. These are things that don't fit into our modern conceptions of gender at all (and also one of the reasons some historians will say "today we would consider him gay" rather than "he was gay," for instance.) This also ties into the concept that the historical origin of patriarchy doesn't serve as its current foundation. A while ago I wrote something about that here.

Another point of disagreement is whether gender is something personal, an identity you can play around with and do whatever you want with, or a social role that isn't defined by you alone. The former is an attractive position both in that it's just more fun, but also because in defending trans people from attacks by conservatives, the argument that has become popular in liberal and some leftist discourse is that trans people are the gender they say they are. That argument is in my opinion putting the cart before the horse somewhat. A trans woman is not a woman simply because she says she is, but rather because she occupies the social position of womanhood. Identity is a product of that, not the cause, in my opinion. It follows that gender is not really something we can just play around with for fun, at least depending on how you define "gender." In an individual context we can identify however we want, using both conventional and unconventional terms. There's nothing wrong with this, and it would be absurd to say that this personal identification is illusory or meaningless, as some do. But in the context of analysing gender on a larger social scale, which we need to as communists and feminists, gender is just not a personal thing. We can't opt in or out or do whatever we feel like, it's a coercive system of categorisation.

However, it's important to note that this doesn't mean that the categories of "man" and "woman" are simply all that there is. It's here that Joe Biden's "at least three" answer to the question of how many genders there are is ironically kind of true. Because I think of you study how different people are treated by patriarchy, it eventually becomes clear that there's some kind of third category. What the best way of conceptualising this third thing is, I'm not really sure. Is it "outside" the two official genders? Is it "below" woman on some kind of hierarchy? Is there just one big spectrum? I don't think there's really a good way to visualise this, partially due to the nature of social constructs like this. It's not something one guy wrote down at one point, it's something all of us are continuously creating together, an amorphous blob of collective beliefs and practices, although obviously some have greater power than others. I have a soft spot for Monique Wittig's insight into this. She argues that lesbians are not women, because by rejecting men altogether they fail to perform the most important part of the role of "woman" that patriarchy has constructed. I think there's more to it than she gets into, but if lesbians are not women they are something else, and that something else is what I'm talking about. This "other" is also something that's a great motivator for performing your assigned role as best you can. Like I said it's difficult to visualise exactly how these roles relate to each other, but there's clearly some kind of hierarchy, and you're more or less constantly threatened with being "demoted" by failing to perform your role properly and thus falling into the "other." The desperation to stay afloat is what subconsciously motivates a lot of transphobia, both directed at the self and at others.

One last point I'll get into because this post is very long now is the notion of "authenticity" when it comes to gender. Here I think Judith Butler is very insightful. Like Wittig I don't think they get into it fully, and in Butler's case I think a lot of their other theory is not quite right or at least often misused, but nonetheless they are correct on this one point. That point being that gender is an imitation with no original. Everybody is pretending. In that sense it's correct to say that trans people are just pretending, but only because so are cis people. In the same way, there isn't really a difference between "authentic" trans people, and people who are supposedly just pretending for attention or even out of some "sexual perversion." One of the things that made me think of the original post was seeing someone I follow (if you see this, hi, nothing against you) talking about the concept of only transitioning "to fuck lesbians," and it struck me as funny that really, you could just as well say that my reason for becoming a lesbian, that is, adopting that identity explicitly, was because I wanted to fuck lesbians.

Anyway, reading recommendations, right.

For Monique Wittig's argument, The Straight Mind and Other Essays is where you wanna look. For Judith Butler, I believe they wrote about that in Imitation and Gender Insubordination. Other than that, maybe Julia Serano's Whipping Girl and Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch?

These aren't things you should just absorb and move on, no work is like that, so I recommend reading with others and critically discussing it together.

[compacflt]

I was wondering if you had thoughts about how Ice and Mav's politics don't fully align with their actions? There was a post where you said Ice's politics are more socially liberal than Mav's but Mav is also the one who goes out to La Jolla to hit on guys before Ice, and later again when he's broken up with Ice, but Ice only goes out with women out of fear for his honor or whatever. Same with their respective thoughts on feminism, with Mav's mild respect for Charlie (telling Ice not all women fit the stereotype) but later Ice is the one who sends Juno to Mav's Top Gun class without telling him she's a woman and Ice has a respectful friendship with Juno. I think you said Ice is vaguely on the ace-aro spectrum (demi-homoromantic) which is a sort of fascinating irony that he doesn't have the words for it whereas Mav is the one with the theories about Ice's sexuality. Though with their hypocrisies and inconsistencies this all just feeds into their characterizations of the fact that they keep divorcing their actions from their spoken words from their identities.

okay going to take this point by point

1. yes i have addressed their politics in relation to their actions before, so maybe read this post and this post before you read this one, just to see where my other thoughts line up

2. gay republicans and conservatives do exist (at the very least certainly republicans and conservatives who have gay sex in secret)

3. before maverick is a political actor he is a human being, and the characterization that we are primarily given for him is that he is impulsive and reckless and doesn’t think through his actions. As ive written about many times before—from a story construction standpoint, his thoughtlessness is his number one most important character trait. He is both thoughtlessly dangerous (his hero’s “fatal flaw;” he can’t stop himself from making bad decisions) and thoughtlessly brilliant (the navy’s best and most daring and heroic pilot). He does what he wants without thinking about it; and he makes excuses and hollow promises whenever that plan doesn’t work out (“I know better than that. It will never ever happen again;” [it happens again] “I’m not gonna let you down. I promise.” [goose dies shortly thereafter]). His thoughtless impulsiveness overrides everything else. Maybe the act of having gay sex (to address your “he gets fucked in La Jolla before ice” point) is politically subversive, but for Maverick’s thoughtless character that we are shown in Top Gun, the most subversive possible thing would be to LABEL the gay sex and think through the consequences of it. To call a spade a spade and call himself gay or bi or queer or whatever. That would be the most subversive (and with mav, entirely unbelievable imo) possible thing. That takes conscious effort of thought, something maverick is near-incapable of doing. As long as he can get away with it without thinking about it, he’s politically in the clear, with regards to his character & character arc. If that makes sense. “Don’t think. Just do.” That’s literally his motto lmfao. He represents thoughtless action as an archetype; his politics come secondary to his desires

4. Their “respective thoughts on feminism” are divided into two camps: 1. “Professional as required by the law” and 2. “Sex pest mode.” They’re naval officers in the 1980s. Whether republican or democrat, that’s kind of par for the course. How men treat women can be a performance to other men. Any respect i made them show towards women had broader, more metatextual “need to move the conversation/story from A to B” reasoning behind it. See the first post I linked for much more on that.

5. i never said ice was on the ace/aro spectrum, or if i did i DEFINITELY meant it sarcastically. That could not be further from what i believe. This isn’t something I’ve ever discussed on this blog before, but a MASSIVE part of the philosophical discussion I’ve been trying to moderate within this project over the last year is the question— “do labels even work with characters under these very specific and extraordinarily extreme conditions and societal pressures?” It’s a question I took from my time studying early American history—the contexts of certain environments, and I would definitely count the elite officer ranks of the navy in the 90s and 2000s as one of these certain environments, simply Are Not Conducive to the easier (path of least resistance maybe) ways we civilians handle sexuality and friendship and trauma. There are so many variables and external and internal pressures within an environment like the upper ranks of career navy officers that sexual orientation labels lose all nuance and accuracy. I don’t think Ice (as i have written him) is gay. I don’t think he’s straight. I don’t think he’s bi. I think he’s an unlabelable product of too many variables for labels to have any effect on how he is perceived. Which, in our society built around labels and categories, is admittedly difficult to wrestle with. But doesn’t make it any less worth wrestling with.

6. Yes, ice and mav’s hypocrisy is the linchpin of the entire story.

They’re both trying to have their cake (“honor” and moral superiority based on the harmful traditional subjective morals arbitrated by elite navy officership) and eat it too (a fulfilling relationship with the love of their lives). & the point is that they cant. they have to settle for one.

#adam & eve can either stay in eden or eat from the tree of knowledge. but the moral authority told them not to eat; so they can’t have both #or—they can have both but they can’t ACKNOWLEDGE having both; they have to keep it a secret even from themselves. that way it’s not sin. #(the navy is ice/mav’s religious institution as i keep repeating) #re: ice and labels. #like i am both joking and not joking when i say he’s mavericksexual #simply because maverick represents both the guilt Ice must deal with re: the death of a friend #AND the recklessness that would inspire him to realize (in the actionable sense of the word) the full extent of his sexuality #no one else can do that. he and maverick were made for each other like that. #same thing where ice is the only one who can legitimize maverick in the eyes of their overbearing institution. #they’re made for each other in a way that imo transcends sexuality and labels. #I’m not going to touch the politics of ‘demi-‘ labels because i know people feel very strongly about it #and you come to me for Top Gun not necessarily my thoughts on modern identity politics #but suffice to say i don’t believe either ice or mav are demi anything. #they’re just guys. they’ve killed people and killed with each other and killed for each other. they don’t need labels. just let them be #tom iceman kazansky #pete maverick mitchell #top gun #icemav #top gun maverick #asks #edts notes #thanks for the ask! hope it isn’t coming off as aggressive or argumentative #* argumentative yes. you can argue with me. #but the labeling issue has been on my mind since DAY ONE & influenced much of how i wrote the story #human beings are so much more complex than most labels give us credit for

[vyacheslav2]

You can say whatever you want about American Liberals vs Conservatives—that's not what this post is about—but I am just so tired of liberal gays being such sycophants to the trans community by saying you can still be homosexual for liking the opposite sex. That's not how sexuality works AND that's not how language works. I'm so fucking over it.

And on top of that, WHY am I hearing more sense from people with a conservative viewpoint than those with a liberal viewpoint? Aren't American liberals supposed to be the ones who are more open minded? Or maybe they are so much that their brains have fallen out and are open to ANYTHING... including the erasure of actual definitions of homosexual & bisexual. Riddle me that...

All gay men should watch the original video (linked in the video bio). Where are we as gay men going from here? Why is sexuality so partisan now (meaning, why is homosexuality a left vs right debate)? Should it be? Am I somehow morally wrong for being a biological male who is solely attracted to other biological males? Even after identifying as a trans women for five years? Am I a fucking alt-right fascist for even stating that? Or have I become too American & have subscribed to American sexuality discourse when it isn't like that in the non-American world? Or is it the same?

#Vyachelsav speaks #Youtube

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Abigail Shrier

Published: Dec 2023

According to a popular meme, “Queers for Palestine” is like “Chickens for KFC”: To sign on to that slogan, you’d have to be suicidal or an idiot. That, at any rate, seems to be the prevailing view in the circles I travel in when it comes to the transgender activists who support Hamas. The climate activists, the feminist extremists, Gays 4 Gaza, and sad-sack members of Jewish Voice for Peace—each of them strikes us as dupes of a regime that would happily jail, repress, or massacre them. Can they really be this self-defeating? Can they really be this gullible and dumb? Well, at the poker table of today’s leftism, if you don’t know who the fool is, more than likely, the fool is you.

Consider Black Lives Matter Chicago, which announced its support for Hamas in the days after the massacre with a gleeful post on X (né Twitter), featuring a Palestinian flag and a silhouette of a paraglider, presumably on his way to rape women and butcher children, as Palestinian paragliders had just done. “I stand with Palestine,” the poster read. Does BLM, an organization whose aim is to “bring justice, healing and freedom to Black people across the globe,” not know how Ethiopian Jews would be treated if they dared visit Gaza?

Similarly, an associate professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, called Israel a “white supremacist Zionist project.” Anyone who has ever visited Israel knows this to be absurd on its face. The 100,000-plus Ethiopian Jews are far from “white,” and a majority of Israel’s population—the Mizrahim, or Easterners, who have been living in and around the Middle East since antiquity—could not be and should not be considered any “whiter” than their Palestinian neighbors.

The foolishness extends beyond race. Climate activists like Greta Thunberg took to Twitter to pledge support for Gaza in the days after the massacre—almost as if they didn’t know that the unprovoked war launched by Hamas on October 7 and the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel will result in both increased carbon emissions and devastation to the local environment.

Meanwhile, gender-studies departments in the United States have sought to “amplify” the call from Palestinian feminists “to join the struggle for Palestinian liberation.” So, in a struggle between an Islamist police state—quite literally, a patriarchy—whose terrorists were encouraged to rape Israeli women on October 7 and a society where women enjoy full rights and serve in the military, Western academic feminists choose the former. And at Columbia University, the queer nonbinary women student group, LionLez, held a movie night: “It’s FREE PALESTINE over here. Zionists aren’t invited.”

Why are the BLM supporters, climate extremists, academic feminists, and trans activists so quick to side with Hamas? Why are those who champion women’s reproductive rights so quick to align themselves with a Hamas-controlled Gaza where women lack the right to drive, let alone get an abortion? Why would they rally to a society where men are encouraged to hit the stray uppity wife? For that matter, why would so many LGBTQ+ groups side against a society that hosts some of the largest Pride festivals worldwide so that they can throw in with another that puts homosexuals to death?

Conservative thinkers James Lindsay and Christopher Rufo have painstakingly traced the Marxist roots of all of these groups, showing that they all branch from the same rotten revolutionary trunk. These groups aim to overthrow the West, and so they support one another. Nests of critical theory fill their interchangeably empty heads.

But I want to suggest a motivation less highbrow and more straightforward. They are all fed by the same polluted water source: hatred, envy, and resentment.

What leads them to show up at the pro-Hamas rallies in remarkable numbers is not ideological commitment. Sure, some may want Marxist revolution, if they even understand what that is. But whatever beliefs they may hold about gender, race, or climate quickly unravel under the clumsy weight of the obvious contradiction of supporting a regime so hostile to these causes.

Which means they are no more motivated by ideology, in other words, than Adolf Hitler was when he allied himself with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Arab mufti of Jerusalem, or the Japanese—another race allegedly inferior to whites in his despicable hierarchy—and made war upon the white French and British. Hitler believed Nazi racial theory, of course. But sometimes hatred simply burns brighter and hotter than all other ideological commitments combined.

So don’t bother informing Gays 4 Gaza that same-sex attraction is proscribed by criminal law in Gaza, backed by a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, in that very territory they’re so wild about. No need to educate them about the finding by Pew Research that the Palestinian population’s opposition to homosexuality is among the highest in the world; that in 2016, Hamas responded to a senior commander’s homosexual activity with a firing squad; or that gay adoption and gay marriage are strictly forbidden in Palestinian territories.

They already know—and they really, truly don’t care.

You could plead with Greta Thunberg and her dead-eyed friends that Israel leads the world in desalination efforts and technology. You could suggest to any of the climate activists marching for Hamas that if they cared about conservation, they might want to side with the state leading the world in renewable-energy technologies. You could remind them that Israel turned over ecologically advanced greenhouses to Gaza worth $14 million as part of the 2005 disengagement—only to see those greenhouses promptly destroyed by the Gazans. If these activists can’t be moved to care for the women who were raped, the babies and elderly butchered, then perhaps Israel’s remarkable efforts to produce electricity from the ocean and seawalls ought to earn it a shout-out from the climate-change warriors? Nah.

They aren’t stupid, and they aren’t suicidal.

Here’s what they are.

They are LGBTQ+ activists who aren’t primarily motivated by gay rights. They are climate radicals who aren’t principally motivated by concern about the climate. And if there were ever a BLM member sincerely concerned about racial justice, no doubt he has long since left the organization behind. Its remaining rank-and-file are no more committed to their putative causes than Hamas is to improving the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

The postmodern left celebrated Lia Thomas, the mediocre male athlete who swapped genders his senior year in college and won NCAA female swimmer of the year, not because it wants to improve the lives of gay and transgender Americans. Had that been the goal, the left would have accepted a fair and sustainable solution, such as an open category for all gender identities alongside a female-only team, and safe transgender changing rooms.

No, they want to take over women’s teams and women’s restrooms, for the same reason a vandal loves a clean white wall. They enjoy making women afraid. They enjoy deleting girls’ names from the record books. They thrill at seeing average Americans squirm.

When a DEI staffer named Nahliah Webber informs parents and children, “There is a killer cop sitting in every school where white children learn,” that isn’t a statement of values. You don’t glue yourself to the Mona Lisa, as eco-warriors have done, or vandalize the Wellington Arch in central London because you love the earth that much. You do it because you despise the civilization that cradles such treasures, because your desire to inflict pain on those you resent deeply overshadows any aim you may espouse on behalf of Mother Earth.

Same with the tearing down of a poster with an image of a child held in captivity, then laughing at a woman who tries to stop you, crying out for mercy. In videos, those who vandalize the posters rarely even react. Their indifference is chilling. At Boston University, confronted by a man holding a camera phone who tells her she should be ashamed of herself for taking down the posters and allying with movement that spreads anti-Semitism, a woman named Anna Epstein stares him coolly in the face. “Dude, you literally know I’m Jewish,” she says.

The great 20th-century economic journalist Henry Hazlitt once noted that Marxism itself ultimately reduces to highly concentrated envy: “The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are.” Universities may add intellectual arabesque to the expression of this hate. But in the end, when these groups bang their bongo drums, their chants reduce to a single creed: Hate those who have something you don’t.

That is what unites this motley crew of mutually exclusive values. When they cry for genocide of the Jews across America’s campuses—“Intifada Revolution,” or “Glory to Our Martyrs,” as one George Washington University student group did—they simply want to inflict fear and instill chaos in a peaceable civilization they despise.

They are not the dupes of a hideous regime in opposition to their values—racial justice, reproductive rights, women’s liberation, climate awareness. We are the dupes for believing they sincerely held those values in the first place.

#Abigail Shrier #gays for palestine #chickens for kfc #islam #gays for islam #islam for gays #pro hamas supporters #hamas #islamic terrorism #religion #religion is a mental illness

[the-feminist-philosopher]

So it has been asked that I put this in it's own post rather than a thread, so I am:

...

Over the last several years, many "rad fem" leaders and organizations have come to ally with LGB &T hate groups and the Christian right because they, "know who real women are." It is these christian right groups like the FRC and ADF who are behind many of the anti-abortion, anti-women movements through the U.S. and Europe. They're also behind a lot of anti-trans policies and legislation.

You can read a bit about who is behind funding these policy initiatives, and how much money goes into these campaigns below:

European Parliamentary Forum

Southern Poverty Law Center on the ADF

Southern Poverty Law Center on the FRC

And you can read about the connection between these groups and trans-exclusionaries and radical feminists below:

Southern Poverty Law Center on the Far-Right Anti-Trans Laws

Southern Poverty Law Center on the Anti LGBT Campaigns

Political Research Associates on Partners with the Christian Right

An "Unlikely" Ally

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), for example, accepted a $15,000 grant from the religious freedom giant, the Alliance Defending Freedom. They also co-authored an anti-trans parenting guide with the Family Policy Alliance, and then partnered with them again to release a homophobic press releases decrying how LGB labels "sexualize" children because no child thinks about sexual orientation (so couldn't possibly know they're gay for any other number of reasons). They've also held conferences and panels with Christian-right organizing groups, namely, the Heritage Foundation.

We've also seen countless radical feminists appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight and the Ingraham Angle, two Fox hosts well-known for whipping up anti-immigrant, xenophobic sentiment in America's Christian Nationalist movement. Speakers included: Meg Kilgannon, Kara Dansky, Tammy Bruce (and here), and Julia Beck.

The term "gender ideology" even has its origins in alt-right Christian circles. And don't even get me started on the use of "hygiene" to describe cis people and the fact they co-opted the idea that certain people-in this case, trans people- have "contaminating" genes from literal eugenics movements. TERF complaints about the supposed existence of "cancel culture" and "woke culture" even echo conservative and right-wing rhetoric.

But it gets worse.

White supremacists and white supremacist organizations (See: Richard Spencer’s Radix for primary example) are trying to turn TERFs into “race realists.” And they're actually having a lot of success because 1.) the movement is chronically white, 2.) the movement is built a lot on social fears, and 3.) the movement often uses crime statistics as a recruitment and justification point (these statistics are used to convince white feminists that there are specific demographics of men they need to be "protected" from). Literal white supremacists are using the TERF's social grievances and crime statistics to "enlighten" these supposed feminists about what they call the "race question." Over-policing and capitalistic deprivation of resources have devastated black and brown communities, making members of those communities the disproportionate victims of incarceration. Simply pointing out crime and incarceration stats without nuance, which TERFs like to do with their "trans women are all sexual predators" crime argument, has actually helped the bottom line of white supremacists.

They're using the standard TERF's belief in the divine feminine-- the idea that natal women have a unique biology which should be protected and venerated-- to convince them that there are "masculine" and "feminine" energies and turn them onto the trad life. And they're tapping into the TERF's unaddressed "benevolent" sexism-- a type of sexism that positively rewards people assigned female at birth for observing their sex-assigned social prescriptions from presentation to roles to a cis identity, and which holds that women should be protected (by the [masculinist] state) and revered, most especially for their unique biology-- to convince them that "modern society" and "modern feminism" is diseased and the antithesis to their liberty. And it's working. It's working precisely because TERFs are so eager to separate people into "biological" castes so that men are men and women are women (and never the twain shall meet), define women as a discrete biological caste ("the sex that can bear offspring or produce ova"), and reify gendered associations, specifically the association that men are Aggressors and women are passive Recipients of said aggression. This ideology actually does quite a bit to uphold patriarchal ideas that define women as a discrete biological category and it also encourages a system whereby men act on behalf of and choose for women (the Aggressor v. Recipient social prescription does a lot to justify rape culture, or men acting aggressively on behalf of and choose for women).

This is why notorious misogynists like Matt Walsh have shown open support for high-profile TERFs and have taken the "Adult Human Female" slogan and run with it. There's a reason these men on the "right" of the political spectrum can't stand the existence of trans people, but will voice support for TERFs and their ideology and use their language. The TERF ideology is sexist and they're sexists, so it follows.

But the bitch of it is that they know this. They openly admit it, but like to play too dumb to know that their movement is collaborating with the alt-right simply to score a political point against trans people. They all hate trans people existing so much, they've allied with the people who'll cut off their hands and gouge their eyes out.

“I do feel kind of nervous about working with the right wing because they have opposed women’s bodily autonomy…”

-Julia Beck

TERFs have put their eggs in the same basket as people passing anti-abortion policies, people trying to pass girl's genital inspection policies for sports, people trying to ban LGB books, people who want to repeal the right to gay marriage, and people who believe that a woman's "place" is in the home- serving a husband and children all to score a political point against trans people.

That is why I always say that in trying to create a feminism that excludes trans people, TERFs have created the very tool with which the alt-right will use to destroy feminism all together.

You can read more about their connections below:

Posie Parker, TERFs Find Audience with White Supremacists

Anti-Trans 'Feminists' Appear at Panel of Right-Wing Heritage Foundation

Tucker Carlson Looks at FPA Partnership with Radical Feminists

Conservative group hosts anti-transgender panel of feminists 'from the left'

The Unholy Alliance of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists and the Right Wing

The "unlikely" political alliance against trans care

Introduction: TERFs, Gender-Critical Movements, and Postfascist Feminisms

Unpacking “Gender Ideology” and the Global Right’s Antigender Countermovement

Call them what they are. They aren't feminists. They're anti-trans activists. They're the latest iteration of an anti-feminist movement.

#TERFism is yet just another iteration of white feminism #it's the ideological conclusion of girl-boss feminism #and white supremacy #txt #feminism #radical feminism

[colognedecigarette]

ey mates. i found this post from a terf talking about their commonly used abbreviations and terms. i'll copy-paste it here, unedited (except the formatting for easier read), so yous know better what to look out for + how they think/justify the use of these terms. i'll put an archive link later in case the read more link breaks. also, this post is full of anti-trans and anti-nonbinary bullshit so ... just be aware of that.

post source is gendercriticalthinking. am not making a whole blocklist bc ... would you believe me if i say that i tried but gave up after the first, like, dozen names bc it got too depressing? lmfao. (feel free to click on the link and peruse the notes yourself though. whenever you can take it.)

archive link.

* TIM and TIF stand for "Trans-Identified Male" and "Trans-Identified Female". Basically, TIMs are what others usually call "trans woman", and same for TIFs and "trans man" (although these terms also cover non-binary-identified and neo-gender-identified people as well).

TIM/TIF are used instead to more accurately reflect the reality of the people in question without sidelining their beliefs/identities: we understand you identify as trans, but calling males "women" and females "men", even if there's a "trans" in front, does not accurately convey reality, and we oppose that.

* OSA and SSA stand for "Opposite-Sex Attracted" and "Same-Sex Attracted". Therefore, the label OSA people covers straight and bisexual people, while SSA covers gay and bisexual people. Basically, SSA women/men are what others usually call "wlw/mlm".

Because people who believe in gender identity and use "mlm/wlw" consider some males to be women and some females to be men, the "men" and "women" in "mlm/wlw" do not accurately convey the reality (similar to the above) of the sex and sexualities of the people in question, as a male who is OSA but identifies as trans would be considered by some to be a "wlw". However, OSA and SSA place the emphasis back onto the sex and sexuality of the people in question, which is, again, a more accurate description of reality when talking about people and their sexualities.

* TRA stands for "Trans Rights Activist." However, this is mostly used to mean "people who agree with/support gender/trans identities/neogenders/etc" rather than "people who are engaging in actual activism for those beliefs." The term gendie is essentially used the same way (although it has more of a connotation of "trans/nb/neo-gender-identified people" rather tham "people who support gender identity but may not necessarily identify as trans/nb themselves") and it has been used frequently more recently, although I and others feel like it's a bit juvenile and derisive.

* Gender ideology refers to the beliefs above, e.g. the validity of gender/trans/non-binary/etc. identities. This is usually used to refer to the beliefs about gender that are exclusive to liberals: that you can change gender/sex, that gender/sex are not binary, that everyone has a gender identity, that misgendering someone or pointing out their "biological" (a redundant word) sex is at best highly offensive and at worst a hate crime, etc. Whereas, gender or gender roles/stereotypes are usually used to refer to the more historical/"classical" concept of gender which lines up with conservatives' beliefs: you know, the whole "women like pink and should wear makeup and are naturally submissive, but men like blue and should be muscular and are naturally dominant" crap.

Although they seem different, they're actually one and the same, or at the very least the liberal/new gender ideology is firmly founded in classic sexism. Both conservatives and liberals believe wholeheartedly in gender: that it applies to everyone without exception ("all women must be feminine and all men must be masculine", and in gender ideology's case add on "feminine women and masculine men are cis while gnc people are trans, you must be either cis or trans" aka you must either enjoy your gender role or want to transition because you dislike it), that it must be rigidly enforced and supported to maintain order and understanding ("A girl who likes boy things?!? That's an affront to nature and must be corrected, girls should like girly things!!!" or "A girl who likes boy things?!? That's clearly a sign she he must be trans, because boys like boyish things!!!"), that it's genetic/inherently true rather than something that is imposed upon people due to misogyny ("Women are submissive to men because God made them that way to be men's servants" and "Everyone has a gender identity, it's something you were born with in your brain, and how you feel about your body [which you can change] and your gender [which you cannot change] determines if you're cis or trans. You must be one or the other."), etc.

* GNC stands for "Gender Non-Conforming", aka what technically applies to most people on Earth, to the dismay of the gender fandom. It's usually used, however, to refer to people who are very noticeably/starkly/deliberately GNC in almost every way and proud of it, such as butch women.

* Gender critical (oftenshortened to "GC" ) is an adjective that most-accurately describes how people like me view gender/gender roles: they suck. Get rid of them. We are, you could say, "critical" of the concept of "gender". Not all gender critical people are radical feminists, but because rejection of the misogynistic concept of gender is a defining belief of GC people, we are nearly always some variety of feminist.

This means we don't really fit in with either of the two most-common/vocal "sides" of the trans debate: conservatives who see a male person in a dress and makeup go "This is disgusting! Stop wearing that right now! You're a man, so dress like one!", liberals who see the same guy go "This is so gender! I'm sure you're a trans woman because of how you present yourself! You're dressing like a woman, so that's who you are!", and gender critical people who see him go "This is awesome, keep being you! It's wonderful that you enjoy being a GNC man! What you enjoy or wear does not define who you are, and who you are does not define what you should enjoy or wear!"… or at least we would more often if the previous two groups didn't end up causing most GNC people to either be closeted/repressed, or believe they must be trans and therefore not a GNC man/woman but instead a gender-confirming trans woman/trans man (or some type of enby, same difference: "you don't obey the gender stereotypes belonging to your sex so you must not be that sex/gender" instead of "gender stereotypes are stupid, and your sex is your sex").

* TWAW is short for "Trans Women Are Women," a common chant and circular-logic-nonanswer from gender ideologists, the popularity of which in stark contrast to the lack of saying "trans men are men" (something only ever said after first saying TWAW, never on its own) surely has nothing to do with the coincidental fact that the beloved, supported, face-of-the-movement group are males and the forgotten, neglected, secondary-to-men group are females.

* While these are of course words used commonly by everyone, I think it would be helpful to lay out the gender-critical definitions of gender and sex here: "gender" is short for "gender roles/stereotypes" (see "gender ideology" above) whereas "sex" is used to refer to the biological realities (chromosomes, gametes, hormones, secondary characteristics, etc.) of being female or male.

Basically:

- Conservatives believe gender and sex are the same thing (or at least use the words interchangeably, as well as believe your gender should match your sex) and therefore believe "female = woman = feminine" and "male = man =masculine".

- Liberals believe gender and "biological" sex are different things (yet often confusingly use the words interchangeably or subconsciously believe they are the same [as seen in their frequent slips of the tongue when talked to] but claim to believe they are different because they want to be good allies) and therefore use "woman" and "man" to describe gender (because they believe "woman = feminine" and "man = masculine") while using "female" and "male" to describe sex (but again they often and confusingly use male/female as synonyms of man/woman, and again likely because they want to be good allies and believe anything that might contradict TWAW is horrific and transphobic).

- Gender critical people believe gender is an archaic, misogynistic system that is long overdue for being tossed out while sex is an accurate, scientific term (therefore making "biological/birth sex" redundant, it's like saying "meat-eating carnivore") to describe the reality of being a human. Women are adult female humans and men are adult male humans. "Feminine" and "masculine" are outdated, arbitrary, sexist concepts and should not be associated with anything: not clothes, not behaviors, and especially not one's sex. Your sex is just biology. It should never determine your behavior and lifestyle: neither to say your sex and behavior/lifestyle must match with gender, nor that if they don't match then your sex/gender must change to make them match.

#radfem dogwhistle #radfem terminology #psa #anti-trans cw #anti-nonbinary cw

[aardvaark]

let's talk about how to spot TERF rhetoric & what TERF dogwhistles exist, because it's important to make your blogs actually safe for trans people!

unfortunately, i still see TERF posts that seem innocuous enough, making their way to my dash because people don't notice the dogwhistles. or TERF rhetoric appearing in feminist conversations and going unidentified & unchecked. also, it's one thing to say you hate TERFs, but it's important to actually know what it is you disagree with! and to make sure you're not so susceptible to propaganda!

note: "TERF" stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". its worth remembering that TERFs believe general feminism ideas, and almost always consider themselves to be left-leaning in politics. TERFs generally believe that trans activism is in some way incompatible with feminism. this is different to conservatives and anti-feminists who hate trans people for other reasons, like based on their religious beliefs, patriarchal values/sexism, general bigotry, etc etc. and i know, yeah, you can argue that TERFs still ultimately hate trans people for these reasons or that TERFs are inherently anti-feminist, but i'm just here to tell you about what TERFs believe. and thats what TERFs believe about themselves.

TERF terms & definitions. many of these apply more broadly to transphobes in general, but they are very much also used by TERFs.

TIM: "trans-identified male", ie any amab person who is trans/nonbinary, usually trans women, because they believe that trans women are males who identify as trans.

TIF: "trans-identified female", ie any afab person who is trans/nonbinary, usually trans men.

libfem: "liberal feminists" which generally just refers to feminists who are trans-inclusive, rather than feminists who hold liberal political views

radfem: "radical feminists" which is what TERFs call themselves. technically radical feminists are not always trans-exclusionary, however radfem ideas tend to go hand-in-hand with a lot of transphobic ideas, and the terms "TERF" and "radfem" are often used interchangeably on tumblr, by TERFs and non-TERFs alike.

autogynephiliac/AGP: a male who is sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a female, or who has a fetish for being a female within a sexual fantasy. this is what some TERFs believe some/most/all trans women "actually are". it is generally believed that AGPs should not be allowed to transition medically, and that they are perverts or a danger to cis women. part of Blanchardism.

transsexual-homosexual/TSHS: a "real" trans woman, in comparison to an AGP (explained above). within this framework, the "real" trans women must be sexually attracted to (cis) men exclusively, and must have known they were transgender since they were very young due to significant gender dysphoria. TSHS are considered preferable to AGPs, and some TERFs & other transphobes think that only TSHS-types should be allowed to transition.

same-sex attraction: not always a dogwhistle or intentional! especially not in older sources or scientific sources. however, many TERFs are very specific about saying that all lesbians can only ever be attracted to cis women (and opposite way round for gay men). so, trans women are invading lesbian spaces by... existing or dating, i guess.

gender ideology: the "ideology" that sex and gender are different, or that its possible & fine to be transgender. the exact traits of this "ideology" vary wildly between different accounts. its kind of like the "gay agenda" but for being transgender.

TRAs: "trans rights activists", ie anyone who supports trans people.

adult human female: TERF definition of what a woman is, and something you will see TERFs call themselves or put in their profiles. honestly gotta applaud this dogwhistle because its exactly what a dogwhistle is meant to be - seemingly totally innocuous, nothing much you can debate about it, but used to identify their

gyns: fellow women, fellow TERFs. in the way that most people might start a post with "hey guys" or "hey everyone", you'll see TERF posts started with "hey gyns". think "gynecologist", it comes from Greek.

womxn, wombyn, womyn, womon, etc: taking the "men" out of "women", very second-wave feminism. wombyn to include "womb" and emphasise the importance of being afab. (ironically womyn/womxn is sometimes used by trans allies in an attempt to be more inclusive of nonbinary ppl and trans women, but ultimately that's really not helpful either).

biological women, natal females, real women, etc: many TERFs dislike the term "cis", and will replace it with virtually anything else to distinguish between themselves and trans women.

hygienic (as a dogwhistle): not sure how popular it is currently, but some TERFs call themselves "hygienic" in their bios to discretely indicate that they are cisgender & are TERFs.

self-hating women: afab people who are trans/nonbinary. comes from the idea that afab people only transition because of internalised misogyny or body dysmorphia or something similar.

gender critical: opposing "gender ideology" as previously explained, thinking that biological sex is the only important thing. another term that many TERFs will use to refer to themselves or tag their posts with.

the ones that are most commonly used as dogwhistles or which may go unnoticed in bios/popular posts, are; adult human female/AHF, womxn/womyn/womon, hygienic, biological women, and (complaints about) liberal feminists.

now onto TERF-related concepts & TERF rhetoric

remember: not all TERFs believe all of these things. some will believe many/all of these ideas, some will only believe one or two, some might actually have a totally different ideology thats rare enough that i've never even heard of it. also, they might follow these ideologies but disagree that its what they believe, or they might believe these ideas without knowing their origin.

blanchardism: the ideas created by Richard Blanchard, a sexologist in the 1980s-90s. this is where the AGP/TSHS dichotomy comes from, as well as other transphobic ideas primarily about trans women. in regards to trans men,

bioessentialism/gender essentialism: the idea that there are distinct, intrinsic qualities that differ between amab people and afab people. that afab people are biologically predetermined to be X and biologically made for Y, and that amab people are biologically predetermined to be A and biologically made for B, basically. this is also classic sexism, with ideas like "men should go to work, while women should be homemakers" and "women are inherently more emotional and less intelligent than men" being examples of bioessentialism too.

gender socialisation: sort of like bioessentialism, but based on early childhood experiences rather than genes. idea that all children assigned male are treated and brought up one way (which involves "boys will be boys" sort of lifestyle, being allowed to do anything, no responsibility, being taught to be violent, being allowed to harm girls they're attracted to, etc) and all children assigned female are brought up a different way (which involves constant sexism & misogyny, patriarchal standards thrust upon them, huge amounts of responsibility, early objectification, being harmed by boys/men). now, its not untrue that afab kids and amab kids tend to be treated differently, especially if their parents are more conservative or part of an older generation, at least within the western/american cultural sphere (although this disregards the variation that exists in everyones childhoods but... anyway). however, this concept is used by TERFs to claim that (a) amab people are inherently irresponsible, violent, perverted, etc, (b) trans women are all male-socialised, and (c) thus, trans women are a danger to cis women, do not understand what it is to be female, and must be excluded from womanhood.

girlhood/womanhood as suffering: the idea that being assigned female leads to a childhood of suffering (due to gender socialisation as described above) and an adulthood of suffering due to futher sexism, so trans women (who allegedly didn't experience this) must be excluded from womanhood. this suffering is often romanticised in a sorta disturbing way.again, obviously sexism exists and causes a lot of suffering, but its the conclusion of "so trans women are bad" that is... just ridiculous. also holds the idea that trans women & girls do not experience sexism or are totally unaffected by it. and basing entry to womanhood on suffering is fucked up because, like... don't we want young girls to suffer less? isn't that a huge part of feminism? anyway.

trans women are privileged: the idea that trans women benefit from male privilege & also get treated particularly well by the rest of the LGBTQ community. often apparently because other trans & queer people are "too scared" to get accused of transmisogyny if they speak up. idea that theres a "silent majority" of queer people & trans allies who actually dislike trans women and/or agree with TERF ideas, but they're "too scared" to be accused of transmisogyny, so they never speak up. disregards the existence of transmisogyny & assumes that most people are trans allies, apparently.

trans women oppress afab trans people: the above, but specifically afab trans people being "too scared" to go against trans women. paints trans women as evil, controlling, cunning, angry & oppressive. disregards the existence of transmisogyny, often also assumes that trans women are pretending to be trans on purpose. paints afab trans people as poor, fragile, confused women, who have been tricked by evil trans women, and who are in need of saving.

gender abolition: the idea that yes, gender is a social construct, so we should get rid of it entirely. through a TERF lens, that also means that trans people are in the way of gender abolition because they identify as whatever gender they identify as, and that encourages belief in gender.

sex-based feminism: the idea that all misogyny and sexism is tied exclusively to biological sex, and thus feminism, as an opposition to sexism, should be concerned exclusively with the female sex.

gender/sex separatism, or female separatism: idea that feminism is exclusively for women, men can't be feminists, and a lot of bioessentialist ideas about the "impurity" of letting amab people into feminist spaces, whether thats cis men or transfems & trans women. idea that women should run society, or that men should be fully excluded from an idealistic utopian female-only society.

lesbian separatism: feminist movement exclusively for trans-exclusionary cis lesbians. holds the idea that virtually any contact with men (or, really, amab people) is anti-feminist, to the point that even bisexual cis women who are TERFs too but may sleep with/be in a relationship with men, are traitors. usually claims that trans women & transfems are invading lesbian spaces & tricking cis lesbians into having sex, which was already a transphobic concept used by heterosexual men. also, that a cis lesbian choosing to have sex with a trans woman (particularly an individual who hasn't had bottom surgery, but honestly often pefcieved the same way even if they have) is somehow being manipulated by that trans woman and that it is comparable to conversion therapy. this is transphobic, transmiogynistic, AND biphobic. the lesbian-exclusive idea does seem to have diminished a bit in TERF spaces, though - i used to see it a lot more. but the idea of trans women invading lesbian/wlw spaces is still pervasive.

gender dysphoria as body dysmorphia: people who transition actually just hate their bodies, and are encouraged by the "gender extremists" or whatever to transition as a solution.

gender dysphoria as internalised misogyny: the idea that afab trans people, especially trans men, are only transitioning due to internalised misogyny. that they desire male privilege, they have dysmorphia due to patriarchal standards (as described above), they don't want to be sexualised by men, etc.

transition to distance oneself from privilege: the idea that trans women are transitioning as a way to distance themselves from their male privilege. ironically the exact opposite of the above. may also contain the idea that straight people, white people, or otherwise privileged people, "become trans" to give themselves an extra marginalised identity.

gender dysphoria as sexual trauma: the idea that some/many/all trans people only want to transition because they were sexually abused/assaulted. either because they don't want to be seen as the sex they were when they were abused/assaulted, or

gender dysphoria as mental illness: it's in the DSM so obviously it must be just a mental illness! yikes. anyway, they'll point out that many trans people have mental health issues, so being trans must also be some sort of delusion, paraphilia, confusion, or other sort of mental illness.

exclusionism: asexual & aromantic exclusionism, nonbinary exclusionism, bi & mspec exclusionism, etc. the idea that some identities are fake and/or that they aren't oppressed enough to be part of the LGBTQ community. this is harmful in & of itself, of course. but it's also a lead-in to trans exclusionism, since TERFs push the idea that transness is fake in some way or another, and that trans women aren't really oppressed, or retain male privilege.

these are all the examples i can think of right now. if i think of more, or anyone lets me know about more! thanks for taking the time to listen.

#transgender #trans #tw transphobia #tw transmysoginy #lgbtq #wren speaks #long post

[bylertruther]

I think ppl mix up gnc with androgynous too! Its pretty easy to confuse in this era but the distinction is important

you're absolutely right, mal! i drafted a long post about this earlier this morning, but i'll copy and paste it below now that you gave me the opportunity to stand on my soap box again hehe. :p

gender nonconformity is not just a man painting his nails, a woman refusing to shave, or someone being transgender. gender expression and variance do not start and end at one's physical presentation, nor is it directly tied to your gender identity itself. cis people can be gnc, trans people can be gnc. you can be a man that dresses like a lumberjack and still be gnc. you can be a woman that wears makeup and still be gnc. you can transition and still be gnc after. gender nonconformity encompasses behavior, interests, and appearance, and it has to do with how an individual interacts with gender roles, which we know are based on stereotypes held at large by society—stereotypes that are still largely common today. and this is a modern definition, by the way, not one plucked from an eighties textbook. not everything is about physical appearances and just because people associate gender nonconformity with one rigid and specific thing does not mean that it is that thing. the same way that androgynous does not only mean a skinny white person that is either a butch woman or a man with long hair, gnc does not only mean said skinny white man painting his nails or said skinny white woman getting an undercut and letting her pits grow out. gnc does not HAVE to be ONLY how you groom or dress yourself. gnc has A LOT to do with behaviors and interests, and the world is not nearly as liberal as it is on tumblr.com lol. some people know better, especially as many millennials start to rear newer generations, but we're still not at an at-large cultural shift, and the gender norms discussed in psychology and psychosexual textbooks have not changed too much as a result. high levels of sensitivity and empathy are still presently seen as being aspects of male gender nonconformity. it is still something that many gay and nonconforming men, as well as their parents, state in studies and surveys about this. sensitive men still face homophobia and misogyny. american men are still expected to not show emotion, work hard, and be the big bad protectors. many people are starting to see that it's a load of bullshit, but it's still considered the norm! gender roles are culturally specific and i think it's just unrealistic to act like western culture, specifically and especially mainstream traditional american culture, doesn't promote the idea of the aggressive, red-blooded alpha male lol. i don't agree with gender norms bc i'm a dirty leftist but that doesn't mean that they don't exist and that society does not push them on everyone and punish those who dare to say no. some things have changed, but not nearly as many as people think and taking a look at how people vote or just talking to people outside of your immediate bubble will show you that pretty quickly. we're unfortunately set to wait a good while before the tides start to really change and we start seeing these less conservative views prevail. and until then... yeah, sensitive men are still assumed to be lesser men and gay and feminine and so on and so forth by young and old people alike in 2023. literally just look at the knee-jerk reaction that so many people have on here and twitter when you talk about how will actually acts on the show. i just. hewwo. gnc is not just looks 😔 and it doesn't automatically make you trans either. 😔 and unless some of you were raised in a literal bubble on a leftist commune somewhere, i know that you know that the world is not as kind and open-minded as you're acting like it is.

#asks #long post #mine #mal sends me two sentences and i send them an essay. amazing #starting to think some of u have never had coworkers who were in their 50s or interacted with someone from an immigrant family or #someone from the south or literally just anyone tht doesn't hold the same opinions and had a different upbringing / class as u lol #bc i'm only 24 and yet i saw this shit in my own lifetime. i hear ppl i go to class with and worked with say tht shit. not everyone is a #leftist with an open mind when it comes to gender!! literally look at the polls look at who we elect look at what sells and what doesn't #look at the comments literally anywhere look at how they treat noah after he came out look at how you guys talk about finn etc etc

[antiyourwokehomophobia2]

It's so infuriating to me that gender critical people aren't afforded the decency of having their arguments regurgitated verbatim. I mean, I know why--when our words are said by us, in our own way, people actually agree with us and think we're logical. People have to twist our words in the most nonsensical way to produce the effects of disagreement.

Like...

Conservatives actually say shit like "abortion is murder" and "being gay is sinful" and "gay agenda". Racist people actually talk about the white race being destroyed and they talk about how people should only date within their race. Neo-nazi's actually draw swastikas and talk about how jews are evil. That's shit that these people say word for word. When you make fun of them for saying that shit, you can rest assured that you're attacking them for things that they've actually said.

No gender crit has ever said "women are walking vaginas" or "vaginas are what makes a woman" or "the ability to be pregnant is what makes a woman" or "all women must look a certain way or they're not women" like... Every single last one of those are strawmen. The only people who have ever said those things are TRA's who are trying to paint "terfs" in a bad light. No radfem or gender critical person has ever said those things verbatim or--hell--even tangentially meant them.

I know that what I say is true because so many people on this site will steal terf posts and change nothing about them because they agree with them but don't like the fact that it's said by someone who's brave enough to not buckle in the face of disapproval.

See, when gender critical people actually say what they believe, in their own words, people will happily agree with it and reblog it because it makes sense.

Nobody could ever use conservative talking points and be agreed with up until somebody points out that they're conservative. The moment someone says something like "abortion is morally wrong", no matter how they word it, it's immediately masks off.

Y'all will literally sit there and agree with statements like "women will find any means necessary to escape the crushing reality of misogyny" or "men oppress women" or "women feel alienated from their bodies and will undergo procedures to make their reality as a woman more tolerable"--you know, things that gender critical people actually say and believe. It isn't until someone tells you that you should hate them that you actually do.

Nobody has to tell me when someone is a conservative. If I went on Twitter right now and searched the accounts of random people, I would bet my entire fucking life that I can pick out who's right leaning. I don't need someone to tell me that. I wouldn't reblog their posts in agreement.

If you don't hate someone until you're told to do so, your hatred isn't genuine--you're just afraid of what will happen to you if you don't bow to the people telling you that you should hate them.///Oh, and in case you're gonna hit me with the "terfs hide their true intentions behind liberal talking points so people will agree with them!!!"

Do they hide or do you just not like facing the logical implications of the things they say? Are you just not a fan of the fact that the phrase "women will do anything to escape the crushing weight of transition" means that some women will pursue transition, not because they feel like men, but because they feel like like life as a women must've been the inspiration behind hell? Do you just not like the fact that "men oppress women" means that men have so many stereotypes around women that they genuinely believe there's a way to become one by emulating a set of behaviors?

Maybe you just don't like the fact that even though you agree with gender critical people, you don't want to confront the crushing reality that destroying systems of oppression is more than just liking Instagram posts, and "letting everyone do what makes them happy" is a notion that can cause disastrous harm.

[aconstantstateofbladerunner]

I did actually get a hint of the racism angle from some of the Dekugate posters. The ones discussing Inko being a "traditional Japanese beauty" and how "conservative" Japan is especially gives me vibes of "Western anime fans who dismiss Japan as a whole as conservative and without any liberal politics or social movements (ex feminism or anti-imperialism), and who's only knowledge of queer culture is Western queer culture + yaoi produced for straight women."

Basically, I'm saying your Dekugate fic really is amazing because it so effectively captures both the overt horror of fandoms centered around these conspiracy theories, as well as the subtle way these homophobic (biphobic specifically in this case), misogynistic, and racist biases appear even in supposedly "woke" spaces.

Misogyny and gay fetishization justified with progressive language are a huge feature of real life celebrity conspiracy counterparts. The most common refrain is the way the actual girlfriends of the center ship are treated. They are not merely women dating men, they are gold-digging influencer wannabes hired by a marketing team to push a narrative that the guys are straight. And because they are willing to participate in ‘closeting,’ it means they are evil, homophobic pieces of shit and anything said about them is fair game. Their weight, their sense of fashion, their bone structure, whether or not they put the man first, how often are they scene without the man present, the way they touch the man, did they ever have sex with someone in exchange for something, what they eat, the way they dance, the way they walk their dog. In the real world, it’s not misogyny to criticize a women for questionable behavior, but you’re supposed to stick with the behavior itself. In conspiracy fandoms, saying that a woman has ‘evil eyes’ is just an extension of the totally reasonable criticism that she didn’t like her boyfriend’s instagram post.

Then there’s the way queerness is used as a justification of misogyny against other, non conspiracy fans. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the conspiracy must be straight, homophobic, stupid teenaged girls without any real life experience. It’s so gross that they think a conventionally attractive person is attractive, unlike the noble pursuits of editing their faces onto gay porn and speculating about what position they have sex in. The reasons they like or connect with the celebrity are totally shallow and insincere. How can they relate to these totally exclusively queer and not all generic lyrics about finding hope through hard times? Oh what’s that? You’re a queer person who doesn’t believe in the conspiracy? You’re not a fan of the celebrity? You must not actually be queer then.

And like i said in the other post, I’m not the most qualified person to talk about racism, but i have seen some shit. A common refrain in some corners is saying that if marketing is going to set the dude up with a fake girlfriend, the least they could do is give him a woman of color who might steer him away from his less-than-progressive image. (I’ve only found one fandom where the focus of the conspiracy is around a non-white celebrity, and even then there is a lot of discourse within about his ethnicity.) Correct me if I’m out of line, but the way they talk about it really sounds like they want a token so their dude looks more progressive in the eyes of people outside their bubble. Especially since that often, when the dude does actually date someone of a different ethnicity, the fandom bends over backwards to ‘prove’ the woman is actually white, ‘white-passing,’ or otherwise not actually ‘enough’ of their ethnicity so they can justify the shitstorm all over again. It’s the same bullshit as when someone wants to make some old school misogynistic joke about women being irrational and annoying, but throw ‘white’ in the front so it can play in pseudo-progressive spaces. And that’s when they don’t just drop the pretenses and start throwing around dog whistles and slurs.

TL;dr: shitty people will often try to come up with moral justification for their shitty beliefs and behaviors, and progressive language is just one of the tools in the toolkit.

#answers #dekugate

[qqueenofhades]

I've been hearing from mildly, otherwise normal conservatives that Reagan is not the president to emulate, bbut Dwight Eisenhower. I'm researching that, but was wondering if you knew any key differences in these men's presidencies.

Oh yes. By a lot. Eisenhower would be a Democrat today, and would have been chased out as a "RINO" long, LONG since, since even in his own day he was on the progressive, liberal side of the Republican Party. He did a number of things which still decently hold up to scrutiny now, and as noted in previous posts, he maintained a 90%+ tax rate on the highest earners in the country. Among other things, he also:

Entered the presidential race to oppose isolationist, anti-NATO Republicans (since you know, he had just spent several years fighting Nazis as the Supreme Allied Commander in WWII)

Signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and sent the army to enforce school integration; he also completed the full racial integration of the armed forces and declared racial discrimination to be an issue of national security;

Developed the interstate highway system and other postwar civic, economic, and infrastructure plans, including the establishment of NASA and the start of the Space Race;

Helped to end McCarthyism and appointed, among both Republicans and Democrats, Earl Warren to the Supreme Court; the liberal "Warren Court" would be instrumental in the expansion of civil rights over the next several decades (as opposed to now, when SCOTUS just takes them away);

However, Eisenhower also signed Executive Order 10450, which started the Lavender Scare and purged thousands of gay and lesbian employees from the federal government (under the idea that they were security risks since they could be compromised by foreign agents threatening to reveal their sexuality). And despite his role in fighting Nazis, his foreign policy sponsored multiple coups (most notably in Iran in 1953, overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister and replacing him with an autocratic shah in order to maintain American and British access to oil). He also expanded the CIA's interference in Latin America and helped to internationally legitimize the regime of fascist Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

Eisenhower did initially try to encourage nuclear disarmament between the USA and the USSR, but after that failed, one of his last acts was to approve the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion (which was carried out under JFK). Despite Eisenhower's personal distaste for McCarthyism, he was still generally motivated by anti-communism and willing to take on both domestic and international, shall we say, adventures to stop it. He also developed the "Eisenhower Doctrine," which propped up unstable American-friendly governments in the Middle East, no matter how corrupt or brutal, to prevent communist countries (read: the USSR) from "influencing" them, got the US involved in the Korean War, and laid the seeds for the Vietnam War.

It is notable, considering the Republicans' current brilliant plan to abolish Social Security and Medicare, etc, what Eisenhower thought of that:

Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things [...] Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

You tell 'em, Ike.

Eisenhower generally continued and expanded New Deal and Social Security policies as established under FDR, and didn't try to completely upend the economy in favor of the rich, like Reagan. He is also known for coining the phrase "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech, in which he warned against the dangers of massive military spending and the farming out of lucrative government contracts to private military contractors. (So you know, everything the US hastened to do as fast as possible. Welp.)

Overall, as noted, Eisenhower's record holds up much better than Reagan's, but he would never, ever be a Republican today; he would be a moderate hawkish Democrat. So there will never be an Eisenhower Republican again, as long as the GOP exists in its current wildly reactionary, openly racist, pseudo-fascist incarnation. So if there are any sane and sensible conservatives left who still affiliate with the Republicans out of tradition, maybe they should think if it actually stands for literally any of this anymore, and act accordingly.

#anonymous #ask #history #american history

[limeade-l3sbian]

Idk if I can agree with that post saying "TRAs are jealous that women's rights are more cared about and get more attention." People don't care about women's rights. Most women don't even care about women's rights, and way less men give a shit than women do. It's the same thing for any marginalized group.

Rather, instead of envy over attention, I think it's a very normal position for privileged people (and marginalized people who have found a comfortable "niche" to insert themselves into that they wrongly believe keeps them safe by appealing to their oppressors) to take when confronted with mounting evidence of the oppression of others. It's envy over "being the underdog" and actually fighting oppressive forces.

The people responsible for this movement are largely either are a part of the oppressive force (ie they're men encroaching upon female rights and spaces, or they're heterosexual and encroaching upon gay rights and spaces), or they are marginalized people who believe that it is impossible for anything to get better, so they (again, wrongly) believe that an attack on the status quo means attacking the way of life they feel is "safest" for them).

These are people who want to believe that they're the dark horse, "fighting the good fight" and "acting on the right side of history" without actually challenging themselves, their beliefs, or the society they live in. So when they're confronted with actual marginalized people who go out of their way to confront systemic issues and talk about oppression earnestly, that challenges their comfortable little world view where they're the "good guys" and the world can be changed by doing nothing or occasionally virtue signaling.

To put it simply: It's not that we're cared about, and they're not; it's that we should be cared about, but we're not, and they know it and are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. It's the same way with men talking about feminism (which, in many ways, is exactly why trans activism is like this--because it is largely men fighting against feminism alongside women with internalized misogyny). They resent the idea that they could be privileged, bigoted, insensitive, oppressive, etc more than they even so much as dislike the idea of others being oppressed. They believe that their feelings matter more than the safety or wellbeing of marginalized people.

They'd never admit to it, but these are people who know they're benefitting off of the subjugation of others. Men expecting unpaid and unappreciated labor from women, women expecting other women to do that labor for men in their place, straight people expecting gay people to be "fun" gays and liberate them from the conservative values constructed by straight people (and not actually be homosexual, at least not where they have to see it, and don't actually challenge the parts of regressive views on sexuality that they still personally enjoy). They want all this without the guilt of being "oppressors." Speaking out ruins their fun.

(Sorry this was so long, I just have a lot of thoughts on the topic.)

No need to apologize! I always love a new perspective on things! Who doesn't love a fleshed out counter? 💜

#ask

[kitchenalia]

You're so eloquent and well-spoken. I totally agree with your latest post. What's with conservative women and Anti-feminists women calling themselves feminists lately? It's so frustrating. And those women will be used as reasons to demonize feminists per usual.

thank you! i really appreciate that. i think there's multiple reasons for anti-feminist women calling themselves feminists. one reason i can think of is that gender discussions have begun shifting and changing. previously, feminists and conservatives had different arguments around gender: conservatives held that gender identity becomes corrupted by leftist (gay/liberal/degenerate, use whatever word you want here) influences, and that transgender identity is sort of tacked on to homosexuality and modern leftism. feminists held that all gender was harmful (since it is a euphemism for sex stereotypes), that many social factors impact transgender identification, and that the root of modern gender identity politics is in patriarchy/consumerism. feminists didn't advocate for a return to tradition or heterosexuality, or abolition of crossdressing. conservatives, by and large, did.

eventually, conservatives began co-opting a lot of feminist arguments against gender identity, though notably removing critiques of patriarchy and capitalism from the equation. some women saw this as a win, since at least somebody was listening to our arguments, but i don't really see it that way. they're not listening, they're using effective feminist talking points because they noticed that they resonated with people. it doesn't mean that conservatives are now advocating for gender abolition, of course. i imagine some women saw conservative talking points as attractive and decided to throw in with them, whereas others already wanted clout with conservative men and saw this as an acceptable topic to capitalize on and become figures in their own right. my guess is that most were never feminists, just against gender non-conformity, but some undoubtedly were.

i think many are chasing dignity and legitimacy, being seen as "reasonable" instead of an unpopular feminist harpy. it isn't worth it.

[papirouge]

Prayer circle ladies 🙏 that the balenciaga scandal wakes more people up to the world of pedophilia in fashion. Often they are higher up gay males in power with an agenda that hate women so they enforce rules to make women look as masculine/deformed for their fetish. They love to force straight men into gay shoots or gay sex (like the casting couch in hollywood) for their enjoyment too and these males are pedos into bdsm on children!! Obviously shown from that Balenciaga shoot with kids being surrounded by pedo propaganda. I want more women to burn these stores and brands down. I hope we do. We need to revive and support jobs of local seamstresses so they don’t have to work at these corrupt companies and protect anyone thinking modern fashion is a safe space. It never was

Unfortunately, nothing will change. Only normal people/normies are outraged about this, but fashion people know that in a few weeks everything will get back to normal....

Balenciaga eventually issued an apology

As a fashion graduate, I keep an eye on the fashion industry and groomers have never been remotely threatened by these scandals. And they've been MANY (Alexander Wang, Richardson, Bruce Weber, etc...). As soon as they are in a position of power, men (for the most part) abuse models. But since they aren't as mainstream as Balenciaga, normies stay unaware of that. Right now as stylist called Nusi Quero is getting exposed for sexually abusing models, licking & flashing them (without consent obviously), spitting on their mouth, and making them wear tights soaked with cat urine???

(btw side eye ing Diet Prada BIG TIME for being so wishy washy in calling out Balenciaga and being surprisingly factual on this one🤔 Weirdly enough, they went harder against Kim Kardashian (so did Candace Owens, probably to whiteknight her newfound bestie Kanye) when homegirl is nothing but a pawn but hey, she's an easier -and more visible- target than those pedo scrote hiding behind curtains... ) They usually aren't that much cautious when it comes to call out other (less known) designers for copying/stealing design, but I guess they can't go after Balenciaga like that since they probably line their pocket🤡 Like, I already knew they were sold out, but it's embarrassing how they aren't hiding anymore lol)

Oh and this predatory behavior doesn't only happens in high fashion, Abercombie OG Creative Director was known to be a creep (and OH SURPRISE! Bruce Weber photographed their campaign 🤡 I recommend you the documentary "White Hot" to understand the extent of the controversial legacy of this brand

Back to Balenciaga: there's a twitter thread exposing one of the creative of the brand's weird Instagram posts. If you're familiar with Pizzagate, you'll immediately understand there's a hole rabbit nest under this trash.

I wouldn't be surprised if internet sleuth find some other evidence of the utter degeneracy of this industry. But it's important to understand that like Pizzagate, it's not just individual, but a whole network. I'm absolutely not surprised to see Marc Jacobs commenting on her post and she mingling with Gosha Rubchinski...

Oh and while we're at it, I'd like to explain to the idiots thinking this

is a "clever" clap back, that it's not.

Regardless what delusional Conservatives think, PEOPLE (not company) are absolutely entitled to not buy products based on whatever reason. That's not "cancel culture" in and of itself. This always existed as a leverage for citizens to express themselves - that's the whole point of boycotting (were the civil rights movement "cancel culture" too?🤔) and I'm FRICKIN TIRED of idiots using this word for literally EVERYTHING. Actually, the same conservatives are actually those who called to boycott Gilette and Nike BECAUSE they didn't appreciate the statements these brands did. So how any of that any less "woke" than liberals refusing to give their money to a republican brand?

Banks...do not close the account of people whenever they get in legal trouble. This talking point I've seen many Kanye simp/Conservatives pull out is retarded. Kanye didn't get his bank account closed: the IRS froze his account over TAX EVASION. Actually Balenciaga has yet to be condemned about anything. Plus, there's also the issue of them using 3rd party for the shooting which makes harder to identify an actual individual responsible for this. Expecting banks to close the bank account of company because they got under public heat is PEAK cancel culture, so Conservatives should live up to their own standards and shut it down.

I want the fashion industry to be destroyed as much as the next sane person, but that's not the way to go. Weaponized such a serious issue for silly political catfights while spouting misinformation is NOT helping. We need to bring awareness about the network of people pushing a very specific agenda (and guess what? That's not Kim Kardashian). All of this overrides political parties and I'm SICK of seeing people using this very serious issue to shoehorn their personal grievances against Liberals. Disgraceful and Wrong.

#answered #papi watch